Enhancement Strategies for Mitigating Potential Operational … · 2016-03-18 · v REPORT SUMMARY...

EPRI • 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 • USA800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • [email protected] • www.epri.com

Enhancement Strategies forMitigating Potential OperationalImpacts of Cooling Water IntakeStructuresApproaches for Enhancing EnvironmentalResources

EPRI Report 1007454

Final Report, May 2003

EPRI Project ManagerD. Dixon

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS ANACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCHINSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THEORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, ORSIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESSFOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON ORINTEREFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY’S INTELLECTUALPROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER’SCIRCUMSTANCE; OR

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVEHAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOURSELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD,PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT

ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY

ORDERING INFORMATION

Requests for copies of this report should be directed to EPRI Orders and Conferences, 1355 WillowWay, Suite 278, Concord, CA 94520. Toll-free number: 800.313.3774, press 2, or internally x5379;voice: 925.609.9169; fax: 925.609.1310.

Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric PowerResearch Institute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric PowerResearch Institute, Inc.

Copyright © 2002 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

iii

CITATIONS

This report was prepared by

Argonne National Laboratory9700 S. Cass AvenueArgonne, Illinois 60439

Principal InvestigatorsI. HlohowskyjJ. HayseR. Van LonkhuyzenJ. VeilW. VinikourL. Urquidi

This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.

The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:

Enhancement Strategies for Mitigating Potential Operational Impacts of Cooling Water IntakeStructures: Approaches for Enhancing Environmental Resources, Final Report, EPRI, Palo Alto,CA, 2003.EPRI Report 1007454

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge all reviewers who have assisted this effort by providinginsightful comments and assistance. These reviewers, in alphabetical order, were:

Elizabeth Aldridge Hunton & Williams Inc.David Bailey Mirant Mid-Atlantic CorporationJohn Balletto Public Service Electric & Gas Co.Kristy Bulleit Hunton & Williams Inc.Doug Dixon EPRIRick Herd Allegheny EnergyGordon Hester EPRIKirk LaGory Argonne National LaboratoryJules Loos Mirant Mid-Atlantic CorporationRobert H. Reider Detroit Edison CompanyKenny Rose Louisiana State University, Coastal Fisheries InstitutePaul Jacobson Langhei Ecology

The authors also wish to acknowledge the following staff from Argonne National Laboratory fortheir invaluable assistance in data collection and evaluation, and technical editing and reportproduction:

John DePue Information and Publishing DivisionAlan Tsao Environmental Assessment Division

v

REPORT SUMMARY

This report describes environmental enhancement or restoration approaches that may beapplicable for mitigating impingement and entrainment impacts associated with cooling waterintake structures (CWISs).

BackgroundEnvironmental enhancement approaches (e.g., habitat restoration, restoration of fish passage, fishstocking) are often used to restore aquatic habitats or biological resources that have been affectedby such activities as hydropower production, water supply system construction and use, mining,road construction, environmental contaminant cleanup, and commercial development.Environmental enhancements have become a common component of National PollutionDischarge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting under the Clean Water Act (CWA) andrelicensing of hydroelectric operations by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).Trading of mitigation or restoration credits, historically considered by the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (USEPA) for addressing air emissions, is also an emerging approach in waterquality permitting.

The USEPA is currently developing Federal regulations to address requirements ofSection 316(b) of the CWA. Regulations for new electricity generation sources and draftregulations for existing electricity-generating sources both provide for using enhancements as avoluntary approach to mitigate 316(b) impacts. A need was identified for a review of the state-of-the-science of environmental enhancement and trading to help researchers, regulators, and theregulated community assess the role of enhancements and trading within the Section 316(b)regulatory context.

ObjectivesTo determine the state-of-science, including underlying objectives, implementation andoperational requirements, costs, current use by government and the private sector, andadvantages and limitations of environmental restoration measures for potentially mitigatingCWIS operational impacts.

ApproachEnvironmental enhancement and trading strategies, decision frameworks, and scaling methodswere evaluated against a variety of technical, ecological, regulatory, and operational parameters,including technological status, ability to target CWIS impacts, and the current level-of-use andstate-of-the-science. A variety of sources were used to collect information for evaluation,including scientific journals; technical publications; conference and workshop proceedings;government, non-governmental organizations (NGO), and private sector publications andwebsites; and personal communications with technical and regulatory experts. The project team

vi

did not comparatively evaluate the various enhancement and trading approaches or scalingmethods, but rather addressed each on its own merits.

ResultsEnhancement approaches fell into two categories: (1) those that directly address fish numbersand (2) those that address habitat. Stocking addresses fish numbers and may mitigate CWISimpacts by replacing fish directly affected by impingement or entrainment. Habitat restorationmitigates impacts by providing more or better quality habitat to support fish reproduction,growth, and survival. Approaches include restoration of fish passage, creation or restoration ofwetlands and submerged aquatic vegetation beds, creation of artificial habitats (such as reefs),and the protection of existing habitat. Enhancement approaches are widely used by a variety ofgovernment agencies and NGOs to successfully manage, restore, and/or protect fisheriesresources in marine and freshwater environments. They have also been used at many powerplants to mitigate for CWIS impacts. Trading approaches could include (1) fish-for-fish tradingthat allows a cooling water user that provides greater CWIS impact reductions than required byits permit to trade those excess reductions to a second cooling water user; and (2) pollutants-for-fish trading that allows a cooling water user to have relaxed CWIS impact limits in its permit inexchange for reducing the load of key pollutants.

A four-step framework was identified to aid in the selection and scaling of restoration projects tomitigate CWIS impacts. Steps in this framework include: (1) setting the baseline, whichdetermines the type and amount of resources that incur impingement and entrainment impactsand for which mitigation is needed; (2) consideration of technological and/or operationalalternatives; (3) selecting the restoration approach; and (4) scaling the restoration project. Acritical component of this framework is the need for consultation with regulators, naturalresource agencies, and appropriate stakeholders to develop the scope and scale of an appropriateproject.

EPRI PerspectiveThis report provides energy company managers, regulators, and interested parties with animproved understanding of environmental enhancement approaches that can potentially mitigateCWIS operational impacts. The report will assist researchers, regulators, and the regulatedcommunity by identifying the current status and strengths and weaknesses of variousenhancement and trading approaches and opportunities for applying these approaches to theregulation of CWIS.

KeywordsClean Water Act Section 316(b)Cooling Water Intake StructureFisheriesEnvironmental Protection and RestorationWater Quality Trading

vii

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Project Background ..................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Overview of Environmental Impacts of Cooling WaterIntake Structure Operation........................................................................................... 1-2

1.3 Environmental Enhancement Strategies Evaluated in this Report................................ 1-2

1.4 Trading Strategies Evaluated in this Report ................................................................. 1-5

1.5 Identifying the Appropriate Enhancement Approach and Amount ................................ 1-5

1.6 Evaluation Approach.................................................................................................... 1-6

1.6.1 Evaluation Parameters......................................................................................... 1-6

1.6.2 Information Sources ............................................................................................. 1-7

2 EVALUATION RESULTS ................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Wetlands Creation, Restoration, and Banking.............................................................. 2-1

2.1.1 Wetland Creation and RestorationState of the Science and Current Use ......... 2-1

2.1.2 Implementation Approaches................................................................................. 2-2

2.1.3 Wetland BankingState of the Science and Current Use.................................... 2-8

2.1.4 Applicability for Mitigating CWIS Operational Impacts .......................................... 2-8

2.1.5 Cost ................................................................................................................... 2-10

2.1.6 Monitoring and Maintenance .............................................................................. 2-11

2.1.7 Advantages and Limitations ............................................................................... 2-14

2.1.8 Summary ........................................................................................................... 2-15

2.2 Creation and Restoration of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Beds ............................ 2-15

2.2.1 State of the Science and Current Use ................................................................ 2-16

2.2.2 Methods for Restoring and Establishing SAV..................................................... 2-17

2.2.3 Applicability for Mitigating CWIS Operational Impacts ........................................ 2-19

2.2.4 Cost ................................................................................................................... 2-23


2.2.5.1 Monitoring................................................................................................... 2-24

Contents

viii

2.2.5.2 Maintenance............................................................................................... 2-24


2.2.7 Summary ........................................................................................................... 2-26

2.3 Creation of Artificial Habitats...................................................................................... 2-26



2.3.3 Cost ................................................................................................................... 2-29


2.3.4.1 Monitoring................................................................................................... 2-30

2.3.4.2 Maintenance............................................................................................... 2-32


2.3.6 Summary ........................................................................................................... 2-33

2.4 Restoration of Fish Passage...................................................................................... 2-33

2.4.1 State of the ScienceFish Passage Techniques............................................... 2-34

2.4.1.1 Upstream Passage Techniques.................................................................. 2-35

2.4.1.2 Downstream Passage Techniques ............................................................. 2-37

2.4.2 Current Status.................................................................................................... 2-38


2.4.4 Design, Construction, and Operational Considerations ...................................... 2-41

2.4.5 Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 2-44

2.4.6 Cost ................................................................................................................... 2-46


2.4.8 Summary ........................................................................................................... 2-50

2.5 Fish Stocking ............................................................................................................. 2-52



2.5.3 Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 2-57

2.5.4 Cost ................................................................................................................... 2-57


2.5.6 Summary ........................................................................................................... 2-59

2.6 Habitat Protection ...................................................................................................... 2-61



2.6.3 Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 2-67

Contents

ix

2.6.4 Cost ................................................................................................................... 2-67


2.6.6 Summary ........................................................................................................... 2-68

3 TRADING STRATEGIES .................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Trading Fish for Fish.................................................................................................... 3-2

3.2 Trading Pollutants for Fish ........................................................................................... 3-3

3.3 Other Trading Issues ................................................................................................... 3-4

4 IDENTIFICATION, SELECTION, AND SCALING OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS ............................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1.1 USEPA Section 316(b) Proposed Rule ................................................................ 4-2

4.1.2 Effectiveness of Enhancement Alternatives for Addressing CWIS Impacts .......... 4-4

4.2 Framework for Selecting and Scaling Restoration Projects.......................................... 4-5

4.2.1 Establishing the Baseline ..................................................................................... 4-6

4.2.2 Consideration of BTA Alternatives........................................................................ 4-8

4.2.3 Selecting the Restoration Approach ..................................................................... 4-9

4.2.3.1 Consultation ............................................................................................... 4-11

4.2.3.2 Identifying Restoration Objectives and Suitable Enhancement Approaches ......................................................................... 4-12

4.2.3.3 Combining Alternative Enhancement Approaches...................................... 4-13

4.2.3.4 Enhancing Species Not Incurring CWIS Operational Impacts..................... 4-14

4.2.4 Scaling the Restoration Project .......................................................................... 4-15

4.2.4.1 Scaling Restoration Projects Using Habitat Equivalency Analysis .............. 4-16

4.2.4.2 Species Considerations for Scaling ............................................................ 4-17

4.2.4.3 Scaling Metrics ........................................................................................... 4-17

4.2.4.4 Use of Multiple Scaling Metrics................................................................... 4-23

4.2.4.5 Use of Safety Factors ................................................................................. 4-23

4.3 Monitoring.................................................................................................................. 4-25

4.4 Adaptive Management............................................................................................... 4-25

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................... 5-1

6 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................... 6-1

Contents

x

A APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, TOOLS, ANDADDITIONAL INFORMATION............................................................................................A-1

A.1 Technical Information and Reports..............................................................................A-1

A.2 Regional and National Agencies, Programs, and OrganizationsRelated to Environmental Enhancements ....................................................................A-2

A.3 Regional and National Guidelines, Manuals, and Tools...............................................A-3

A.4 Ecosystem Valuation...................................................................................................A-5

A.5 Professional Societies .................................................................................................A-8

A.6 Scientific Journals ....................................................................................................... A-9

B APPENDIX B: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................B-1

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 Advantages and Limitations of Wetland Creation, Restoration,and Banking for Mitigating CWIS Operational Impacts. ..................................... 2-14

Table 2-2 Estimates of Relative Ability of Selected SAV Species to Recoverfrom Injuries to Key Features and Overall Estimates for InjuryRecovery Potential. ........................................................................................... 2-18

Table 2-3 Use of SAV by Selected Fish and Invertebrate Species Importantto Fisheries on the Eastern Coast of the United States. .................................... 2-20

Table 2-4 Advantages and Limitations of Creation and Restoration of SAVas a Mitigation Tool for CWIS Operations. ........................................................ 2-25

Table 2-5 Advantages and Limitations of Artificial Habitats as a Mitigation Toolfor CWIS Operations. ........................................................................................ 2-33

Table 2-6 Design Considerations for Implementing Fish Passage Technologies. ............. 2-43

Table 2-7 Fish Passage Costs for Upstream and Downstream Fish PassageMitigation for 34 Reporting Hydropower Facilities in the United States.............. 2-47

Table 2-8 Fish Passage Costs for Upstream and Downstream Fish PassageMitigation for 50 Reporting Hydropower Facilities in the United States.............. 2-48

Table 2-9 Costs for Various Dam Removals in the United States, 1990–1999. ................. 2-49

Table 2-10 Advantages and Limitations of Fish Passage Restoration for MitigatingCWIS Operational Impacts................................................................................ 2-51

Table 2-11 Goals and Highlights of Select National Fish Hatcheries................................... 2-54

Table 2-12 Advantages and Limitations Associated with Stocked Fish and HatcheryPresence and Operation. .................................................................................. 2-60

Table 2-13 Examples of Some of the Partnerships between ConservationOrganizations and the Private Sector................................................................ 2-63

Table 2-14 The Conservation Fund’s 2001 Land Purchase Costs, by Region..................... 2-68

Table 2-15 Recent Projects Completed by The Nature Conservancy and Their Costs........ 2-70

Table 2-16 Advantages and Limitations of Habitat Protection and Partneringwith Conservation Organizations as a Mitigation Toolfor CWIS Operations. ........................................................................................ 2-71

Table 4-1 Advantages and Limitations of Methods Used for ScalingEnvironmental Enhancements. ......................................................................... 4-19

xii

LIST OF TEXT BOXES

Text Box 2-1. Common Fish Passage Techniques ............................................................. 2-35

Text Box 2-2. Case StudyLittle Falls Dam Fishway Project ............................................. 2-40

Text Box 2-3. What Is Supplementation?............................................................................ 2-52

Text Box 2-4. How Hatcheries Affect Natural Populations .................................................. 2-58

Text Box 2-5. Examples of Monitoring Parameters ............................................................. 2-67

1-1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Background

Cooling water intake structures (CWISs) are used extensively by the electric power industry, aswell as other industries, to withdraw cooling water from natural water bodies. CWISs aretypically designed to reduce or eliminate the intake of debris and fish. However, concern overthe potential for impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms, particularly fish, has led tothe search for strategies to mitigate these potential impacts on aquatic ecosystems.

Environmental enhancements, also known as off-site mitigation, voluntary environmentalprojects, or restoration (the term used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] inits regulations dealing with CWISs) are frequently negotiated as a settlement for real orperceived impacts associated with industrial operations requiring environmental permitting orlicensing (Schoenbaum and Stewart 2002). These enhancements are volunteered by the applicantin lieu of technological changes in operations or facilities, particularly where the operational orengineering changes are not economical, where the state of the art for technologically mitigatingan impact is limited or of uncertain environmental value, or where the mitigation would haveobvious ancillary benefits. The enhancements may also be offered in combination with technicalchanges when the changes by themselves do not reduce impacts to acceptable levels.Environmental enhancements have become a common component of National PollutionDischarge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and aspart of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing of hydroelectric operations.They have been instrumental in resolving complicated debates over the impacts on fisheriescaused by cooling water intakes.

Although Section 316(b), which deals with CWISs, has been part of the CWA since 1972, theUSEPA has not had national regulations for implementing Section 316(b) in place since theregulations were remanded in 1977. In the absence of national regulations or guidelines, statepermitting agencies and USEPA regions have developed a variety of strategies for implementingSection 316(b) on a case-by-case basis. One of these strategies involves using environmentalenhancements to offset environmental impacts from CWISs. Regulators have repeatedlyfollowed approved the use of environmental enhancements (Schoenbaum and Stewart 2002).

The USEPA is developing federal regulations to implement Section 316(b). Regulations for newgenerating facilities were finalized on December 18, 2001. Draft regulations for existingelectricity-generating sources were proposed on April 9, 2002, and must be finalized byFebruary 16, 2004. The final new facility regulations allow the use of enhancements, and theproposed existing facility regulations embrace enhancements to an even greater extent. However,

Introduction

1-2

the new facility regulations are currently being challenged in court, and the existing facility rulesare not yet finalized. While USEPA provides for environmental enhancements as part of theSection 316(b) process, the opportunity to use enhancements is not guaranteed until both sets ofrules are finalized.

The intent of this report is to characterize environmental enhancements that have been identifiedas relevant to Section 316(b), identify their technical merits, present methods or approaches tomonitor their effectiveness and to identify approaches for selecting the type and amount ofenhancement. The information resulting from this effort will serve as a source document on thetechnical aspects of environmental enhancements. This report also identifies and evaluates theuse of trading strategies as a mitigation avenue for addressing CWIS impacts.

1.2 Overview of Environmental Impacts of Cooling Water IntakeStructure Operations

Biological impacts resulting from the operation of CWISs generally fall into two maincategories: impingement or entrainment. Impingement involves the physical capture of aquaticorganisms against the CWIS intake screens that are used to prevent large objects from enteringand clogging or damaging electric generating equipment such as pumps and condensers (USEPA1997, 2002a). Entrainment involves passage of smaller organisms through the intake screens andthen through the cooling water system. The principal concern for both impingement andentrainment is that they increase mortality of adult, juvenile, and larval fishes and fish eggs,thereby having potentially adverse effects on fish populations (USEPA 2002a, Dixon andWisniewski 2002).

1.3 Environmental Enhancement Strategies Evaluated in this Report

The categories of environmental enhancements evaluated in this report include:

1. Creation, restoration, and banking of wetlands;

2. Planting of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV);

3. Construction of artificial habitats (e.g., reefs);

4. Restoration of fish passage; and

5. Supplementation of fish stocks through use of hatchery stocking programs.

A considerable amount of existing knowledge and ongoing research is associated with each ofthese enhancement approaches (e.g., Arnold et al. 2001, Odeh 1999, Teal and Weinstein 2002),and each may be considered as a distinct multidisciplinary scientific discipline or as a branch offisheries science.

Introduction

1-3

In addition to these five approaches, this report also evaluates the applicability of habitatprotection for mitigating CWIS impacts. In this approach, existing habitat and its associatedecological resources would be protected from threats associated with encroachment of humanactivities (unrelated to CWIS operations), such as commercial and industrial development.Protection could be achieved through a variety of mechanisms, such as direct purchase andmanagement of habitat, and partnering with other entities (such as The Nature Conservancy orU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]) to identify, purchase, and manage habitat.

Other environmental enhancement approaches that may be relevant to mitigating CWISenvironmental impacts but that are not addressed in this report include (1) reducing water qualitystressors (such as contaminants originating from point and nonpoint sources unrelated to electricpower generation) and thereby increasing aquatic habitat quality and availability; (2) workingwith federal and state natural resource agencies to control or reduce nuisance species (such as theAsian carp); and (3) providing funds to natural resource agencies or NGOs to perform restorationor protection activities that might otherwise not be conducted. In the future, other enhancementapproaches may be developed that could be applicable to mitigating CWIS environmentalimpacts.

Each of these enhancement approaches has been widely used by a variety of federal agencies(e.g., USEPA, USFWS, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation [Reclamation], U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers [USACE]), state and local government agencies (such as various departments of fishand game, natural resources, conservation, and parks), and private sector organizations (e.g.,Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy) to create, restore, and protect aquatic habitats orbiological resources (e.g., fish stocks) that have been adversely affected by human activities.These activities include hydropower production; creation, use, and maintenance of water supplysystems; mining; road construction; environmental contamination and cleanup; and commercialdevelopment. Environmental enhancements have also been used to increase the amount ofhabitat or fish stocks for conservation, commercial, or recreational purposes, rather than inresponse to a specific activity impact or effect.

For example, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCLA), one of this country’s major environmental cleanup regulations, calls for thecompensation and restoration of natural resources injured by chemical releases and anyassociated cleanup. Under CERCLA, natural resource restoration is addressed through theNatural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process (43 CFR 11), which also requiresidentification of methods to compensate for past natural resource injuries and to restore orreplace the resources (including habitats) impacted by environmental contamination. Theenvironmental enhancement approaches evaluated in this report are commonly used infreshwater, estuarine, and marine systems to provide restoration and/or replacement of naturalresources under CERCLA, NRDA, and other environmental programs.

Wetlands Creation, Restoration, and Banking. Wetlands are a rapidly vanishing ecologicalresource in North America (http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/vital/status.html). Wetlandcreation, restoration, and banking have been extensively used to protect and manage wetlandresources and to enhance or increase fish and wildlife habitat. Wetland creation involves theconstruction of “new” wetlands at locations that previously had little or no natural wetlands

Introduction

1-4

present. It also is used to compensate for habitat impacts associated with contaminant releasesand subsequent cleanup at hazardous waste sites, and to restore habitat disturbed by miningoperations, highway construction, housing developments, and other construction or excavationactivities. Wetland restoration involves the rehabilitation of areas where previously supportedwetland communities have been destroyed or degraded. Wetland banking refers to therestoration, creation, enhancement, or preservation of wetlands for purposes of providingcompensatory mitigation in advance of authorized impacts to similar wetlands at another location(National Research Council 2001).

Creation of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Beds. Submerged (or submersed) aquatic vegetation(SAV) beds play an important role in many freshwater and marine ecosystems. SAV bedsprovide nursery habitat for juvenile fish and foraging habitat for fish and wildlife, and they areessential habitat for many invertebrate organisms, such as brown shrimp. In some cases, SAVcreation or restoration is used to increase recreational fishery opportunities because of the fish-attracting aspects of SAV beds. Creation of SAV beds often involves the planting of native SAVin areas where historic SAV habitat has been destroyed (http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/sav001).

Creation of Artificial Habitats. Artificial habitats (e.g., reefs) are widely used in freshwater(Tugend et al. 2002) and marine locations to create underwater structures that enhance fishreproduction, growth, and survival, and promote increased production of invertebrate biota.Artificial habitats are used to increase spawning and nursery habitat for some fish species, aswell as to provide habitat for other aquatic biota. They are often used to enhance recreationalfishing and diving opportunities as well. Creation of artificial habitats to produce relativelypermanent fish habitat involves the placement of typically man-made materials such as cobbleand boulders, engineered structures, or old ships (for example, see www.dnr.state.sc.us/marine/pub/seascience/ artreef.html and http://www.dcnr.state.al.us/mr/ artificial_reefs.htm).

Restoration of Fish Passage. In many river systems, dams, dikes, culverts, and water diversionshave been widely used to provide flood control, to generate hydropower, to provide streamcrossings, to benefit navigations, and to create lakes and reservoirs for water supply purposes.Each type of structure impacts the ability of resident fishes to move between in-stream habitats.The restoration of fish movements has received significant attention throughout North Americaand elsewhere. Restoration of fish movement includes use of such technologies as fish ladders,lift gates, and the capture and trucking of fishes around riverine obstacles (OTA 1995, Amaral etal. 1998). The restoration of fish passage to seasonal off-channel habitats, such as floodedbottomlands and backwaters, has been identified as a critical component for the recovery ofendangered fishes (CREFRP 2002)

Fish Stocking. Fish stocking is widely used in the management of recreational and commercialfisheries in both freshwater and marine systems (Kohler and Hubert 1993, USFWS 2002b). Fishstocking is also being used in the recovery of endangered fishes in areas such as the ColoradoRiver Basin (USFWS 2002h). Stocking involves the production of fish in hatcheries forsubsequent release into the wild. Many fisheries in the United States are the result of historicalstocking, and some are maintained solely through ongoing stocking. Depending on the speciesand stocking goals, fish can be stocked from within a few weeks or less of hatching all the wayto catchable size.

Introduction

1-5

Habitat Protection. Habitat Protection (i.e., the purchase and management of existing naturalareas) has been implemented across the United States and throughout the world to preserveexisting land and water resources. Habitat protection can be carried out by an individual agency,but often pooling financial resources yields greater returns. For example, the USFWS works withstates to acquire, restore, manage, or enhance coastal wetlands through a matching grantsprogram (USFWS 2003).

1.4 Trading Strategies Evaluated in this Report

Historically, USEPA has considered trading of air emissions and (more recently) water-borneeffluents (Veil 1998). Neither of these practices is directly applicable to CWIS impacts, but theycan serve as models for trading under Section 316(b). This report discusses two types of tradingapproaches that may have relevance to Section 316(b) issues. These approaches are (1) tradingfish for fish (i.e., allowing one cooling water user to provide CWIS impact reductions to a greaterextent than required by its permit and then trading those excess reductions to a second coolingwater user), and (2) trading pollutants for fish (i.e., allowing a cooling water user to have relaxedCWIS impact conditions in its permit in exchange for reducing the load of key pollutants.)Generally, these trading strategies would be done within the same watershed or stream segment,but could also be used on other ecologically appropriate scales (e.g., a coastal migratory fishspecies consisting of single stock could be replaced in another estuary).

These trading concepts are closely related to the use of the other types of enhancementsdescribed in this report in that all are designed to offset an impact using an external mechanism.In some situations, enhancements or trading will offer a more cost-effective solution than willinstallation of additional CWIS technologies. While pollutant-for-fish trading is similar toenhancements, there is an important distinction in how the environmental improvement iseffected. Enhancements benefit aquatic populations indirectly by improving habitat or directly byadding new hatchery-raised fish to the ecosystem. Alternatively, pollutant-for-fish tradingbenefits aquatic populations by improving water quality. It is assumed that better water qualitywill lead to enhanced populations of aquatic organisms.

1.5 Identifying the Appropriate Enhancement Approach and Amount

This report evaluates a number of environmental enhancement approaches that may be employedfor mitigating impingement and entrainment impacts of CWIS operations. At any particularlocation, any number of these (or other) enhancement approaches may be potentially applicable.Because of the dissimilar nature of these enhancements, direct comparison of implementationrequirements, costs, success criteria, and environmental benefits can be difficult. Once anenhancement approach (or combination of approaches) has been selected, a determination mustbe made of the amount of enhancement needed to adequately mitigate impingement orentrainment impacts of CWISs. However, the expected outcomes of the different approaches(e.g., increased habitat) are not necessarily directly comparable to the CWIS environmentalimpacts (e.g., the annual number of fishes impinged), making determination of an enhancementamount difficult.

Introduction

1-6

A variety of approaches are available that may be useful in helping decision makers select aparticular enhancement strategy and determine the amount of enhancement (i.e., the scale) thatmay be needed to mitigate a known level of CWIS environmental impact. Importantconsiderations in the selection and scaling of enhancements include the determination of theappropriate impingement and entrainment impact baseline, applicability and benefits of besttechnology available alternatives, development of enhancement goals through interaction withregulators, natural resource agencies, and other stakeholders, and the selection of appropriatemetrics to link baseline impacts with enhancement goals and scale the size of the enhancementproject. With regards to determining how much enhancement (i.e., scaling the enhancement)may be necessary and appropriate, considerable research has been conducted relatingenvironmental enhancements and fish production (e.g., Teal and Weinstein 2002). Metrics thatcan be used to scale enhancements include fish/shellfish for direct replacement of fish/shellfishlosses, production of equivalent adults, replacement levels based on production foregone,equivalent biomass, net present value, replacement based on use of the random utility model,energy transfer and food chain, and use of American Fisheries Society fish replacement values.

1.6 Evaluation Approach

1.6.1 Evaluation Parameters

Each of the six environmental enhancement strategies considered in this report was evaluatedagainst a variety of technical, ecological, regulatory, and operational parameters, including thefollowing:

• Technological status and feasibility,

• Enhancement objectives and target ecological/environmental resources,

• Preferred ecological and/or environmental responses,

• Applicability to target CWIS impacts,

• Current level of use,

• Implementation time,

• Implementation costs,

• Operational and maintenance costs,

• Monitoring requirements and success criteria, and

• Technical and regulatory issues.

The evaluation of the enhancement strategies included consideration of their applications inmarine, estuarine, and freshwater environments. Information was also considered regardingselection of the location for implementing a strategy and for determining what level ofenhancement might be necessary to mitigate for a specific level of CWIS impact (i.e., a knownor estimated level of impingement or entrainment impact).

Introduction

1-7

1.6.2 Information Sources

The variety of sources used to collect information for evaluation in this report included:

• Scientific journals,

• Federal and state agency reports,

• Professional society technical publications,

• Conference and technical workshop proceedings and related publications,

• Technical books,

• Government and private sector web sites,

• Non-government organization publications and other informational materials (e.g., factsheets), and

• Personal communications with technical and regulatory experts.

Complete citations for all information referenced in this report are provided in Chapter 5.Additional technical information, such as web sites and sources for guidance documents, isprovided in Appendix A. Appendix B presents an annotated bibliography of the recent literatureon ecosystem restoration issues.

2-1

2 EVALUATION RESULTS

2.1 Wetlands Creation, Restoration, and Banking

Wetlands are a rapidly diminishing ecological resource in North America, and wetland creation,restoration, and banking have been extensively used to protect and manage wetland resourcesand to enhance or increase fish and wildlife habitat (http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/vital/status.html) (National Research Council 2001). Wetland creation involves the construction ofwetlands where none existed previously and may require more extensive engineering ofhydrology and soils (Mitch and Gosselink 1993).

Wetland creation can also be used to compensate for habitat impacts associated with contaminantreleases and subsequent cleanup at hazardous waste sites, and to restore habitat disturbed bymining operations, highway construction, housing developments, and other construction orexcavation activities (Schoenbaum and Stewart 2002). Restoration takes what was once afunctional marsh that has become degraded, removes the causes of degradation, and restores themarsh to full function. Restoration projects historically have exhibited a greater success thanhave wetland creation projects (Kruczyiski 1990) and thus have a higher potential than wetlandcreation for meeting the goals of CWIS impact mitigation. Successful restoration more oftenyields wetlands that are functionally equivalent to proximal (nearby) natural wetlands (Shisler1989), or that meet specific restoration goals (Jorgensen and Mitsch 1989, Zedler 1993).Zedler (1993) identified three major functions on which to assess successful restoration/creation:hydrologic control, water quality improvement, and food chain support. The ability of a restoredmarsh to meet these generic criteria depends largely on attention to detail in the planning stages(Demgen 1988).

Wetlands banking can be defined as the restoration, creation, enhancement, or preservation ofwetlands for purposes of providing compensatory mitigation in advance of authorized impacts tosimilar resources at another site resulting from approved construction activities (USACE 1996,National Research Council 2001).

2.1.1 Wetland Creation and Restoration�State of the Science and Current Use

Creation and restoration of wetlands have been undertaken for over two decades, primarily tomeet regulatory requirements (including compensatory mitigation for wetland losses) and toincrease fish and wildlife habitats (Kusler and Kentula 1990, National Research Council 2001).The goals of wetland creation and restoration are generally the replacement or restoration of

Evaluation Results

2-2

wetland functions within the landscape. Wetland functions can be grouped into three majorcategories (National Research Council 1995):

1. Hydrologic functions (e.g., short-term surface water storage, long-term surface water storage,maintenance of a high water table);

2. Biogeochemical functions (e.g., transformation and cycling of elements, retention andremoval of dissolved substances, accumulation of peat, accumulation of inorganicsediments); and

3. Habitat and food web support functions (e.g., maintenance of characteristic plantcommunities, maintenance of characteristic energy flow).

The characteristics of wetland functions are becoming better understood (Adamus and Stockwell1983, Adam 1990, Adamus et al. 1991, Brinson 1993, Zedler 2001). The National Action Plan toImplement the Hydrogeomorphic Approach to Assessing Wetland Functions (Department ofDefense et al. 1997) was developed by a federal interagency working group to provide regionalguidance for assessing the functions of existing wetlands on the basis of influencing hydrologyand geomorphology.

Understanding the relationship between wetland characteristics and functions has made possiblethe successful design of wetlands to provide specific functions (Marble 1992), and the success ofwetland creation and restoration projects has greatly increased over early attempts. A largenumber of wetland restoration projects have demonstrated the potential for successfulrehabilitation of degraded or impacted wetland systems (RAE and ERF 1999, Rozas and Minello2001, Weinstein et al. 2001, Havens et al. 2002, Poulakis et al. 2002, Swamy et al. 2002).

Wetland restoration and creation have frequently been undertaken to provide compensatorymitigation for permitted impacts to wetlands (e.g., under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act[CWA], Section 10 of the River and Harbors Act, the wetland conservation provisions of theFood Security Act, and CERCLA). Compensatory mitigation generally involves replacingwetland functions that have been lost from the landscape with the same type of wetland that waslost and in the same watershed. Evaluations of existing wetland restoration and creation projectshave led to an understanding of potential causes of failure and ways to increase the likelihood ofsuccess (Kentula et al. 1992, National Research Council 2001, Race and Fonseca 1996, Bohlenet al. 1994, Weinstein et al. 1997, RAE-ERF 1999, Brown and Veneman 2001, Robb 2001,Campbell et al. 2002, James-Pirri et al. 2001).

2.1.2 Implementation Approaches

Wetlands provide numerous functions within the landscape, such as the development andmaintenance of characteristic plant communities (which provide habitat for fish and wildlife),surface water storage (which helps maintain fish habitat), and the accumulation of sediments(which maintains water quality) (National Academy of Sciences 1995; Interagency Workgroupon Wetland Restoration undated, Mitsch and Gosselink 1993, also see http://www.epa.gov/

Evaluation Results

2-3

OWOW/wetlands/vital/status.html). Establishment or restoration of these wetland functions is animportant component of a successful wetland mitigation project (SWS 2001). The characteristicsof wetland communities that are restored or created, including structure, species, and hydrology,should be similar to undisturbed regional wetland types.

Increases in the understanding of wetland functions and evaluation of previous wetlandrestoration and creation attempts have yielded guidance for the successful establishment ofwetlands. It should not be assumed that every degraded site can be reversed. Therefore, a rangeof targets for restoration (both approaches and sites) should be identified (Lindig-Cisneros et al.2003). A list of guidelines and other information sources for wetland restoration and creation isprovided in Appendix A. Guidelines for performance standards, or success criteria (SWS 2001,USACE 1998, 2001), as well as conservation practice standards (NRCS 1998a,b), have also beendeveloped for wetland creation and restoration.

The goal of wetland restoration generally is to reestablish ecological communities and processesin damaged or lost wetlands. A specific objective must be established to determine the type ofwetland restoration site and the specifics of the design of the restoration. As an example, thePublic Service Electric & Gas’s (PSE&G’s) Estuary Enhancement Program is restoring orpreserving more than 10,000 acres of salt marsh on Delaware Bay in order to increase productionof aquatic organisms to offset losses due to CWIS operational impacts (Weinstein et al. 1997,Mitsch and Gosselink 1993, Public Service Enterprise Group 1999a, Mitch 2000,Weinstein et al. 2001, Vivian-Smith 2001.) However, wetland creation often establishes wetlandcommunities on sites that have not previously supported them. Several wetland functions thatfrequently are associated with wetland creation and restoration are: (1) surface water storage(which reduces downstream flood peaks through the absorption of storm-water flows); (2) theretention, transformation, and removal of nutrients, sediments, and contaminants (whichmaintains or improves water quality); and (3) the establishment of wetland plant communities(which provides habitat for invertebrates, fish, and wildlife). Wetland characteristics that areassociated with specific functions can be incorporated into the design of restored or createdwetlands. Wetland restoration or creation can include various wetland types (e.g., tidal saltmarsh, freshwater marsh, forested riparian, or other wetlands) (Kusler and Kentula 1990,National Research Council 2001). Components of wetland restoration and creation projectsinclude establishment of appropriate hydrological conditions, soil preparation (includingcontouring and amendments), revegetation, and streambank stabilization. For example, Perry etal. (2001) provide a number of recommendations for creating tidal salt marshes.

Site selection is a major factor in the success of wetland creation and restoration projects. Siteselection should favor those locations that can sustain an appropriate hydrology with minimummanipulation during both construction and ongoing operation. Former wetland sites to whichnatural hydrologic regime can be restored are preferable to sites that require extensive andcomplex engineering. The site selection process should begin on a landscape basis within thewatershed or other ecological unit being considered (Mitch and Gosselink 1993). Surroundingland use and the extent of disturbance within the watershed are also important considerations insite selection, as well as potential restrictions on the restoration techniques available (Mitsch andGosselink 1993, Simenstad, et al. 2000, National Research Council 2001, Vivian-Smith 2001.)Site-specific considerations include appropriate elevation, hydrology, and soils, presence of

Evaluation Results

2-4

vegetation, plant propagules, and fauna on the site, and appropriate sediment in suspension intidal areas (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993, Weinstein et al. 2001, Vivian-Smith 2001, Levin andTalley 2002, Raposa and Roman 2003, Lindig-Cisneros et al. 2003).

For example, Public Service Enterprise Group (1999a,b) has developed a systematic process toidentify and secure wetland restoration sites in the Delaware Estuary that exhibit conditionsfavorable for restoration. The evaluation process was conducted within a decision frameworkthat balanced multiple, diverse factors and prioritized the sites for land acquisition. An inventoryof the Delaware Estuary was initially developed through review of aerial photographs to quantifythe extent of degraded wetlands potentially available for restoration. Following the initialevaluation, available resource documents were reviewed, and field reconnaissance of potentialsites was conducted to identify properties suitable for restoration.

Salt hay farm sites were identified and acquired first. Then, other impoundments andPhragmites-dominated sites were considered. These sites were evaluated systematically toachieve the following objectives: (1) maximize restoration reliability, as determined by existingenvironmental conditions; (2) avoid time delays so that the exacting permit time frames would besatisfied; and (3) maximize ancillary benefits that would accrue to the restoration and adjacentareas.

Baseline evaluation of the Delaware Estuary wetlands consisted of a review of aerialphotographs to determine historical land use practices, followed by field visits to prospectivesites to obtain information on tide range, salinity, and other site features such as marsh elevation,vegetation characteristics, and tidal creek geomorphology. Acceptable sites were required tohave suitable sediment/soil substrate characteristics, including high sediment organic content andclose proximity to Spartina salt marshes for revegetation and faunal recolonization, and wereexpected to have appropriate salinity and marsh plain elevation to support the growth of Spartinaspp. and other desirable, naturally occurring marsh vegetation. On the basis of a review ofvarious environmental, ecological, and socioeconomic factors, sites were ranked according to thelikelihood that restoration to a Spartina-dominated salt marsh was practicable.

Critical to the proper design and evaluation of a wetland restoration is the use of appropriatereference sites (Kusler and Kentula 1989a,b, Aronson et al. 1996, Hobbs and Norton 1996).During the design phase of wetland creation or restoration, relatively undisturbed wetlandsshould be selected as reference wetlands within the same region to represent wetland types withsimilar hydrogeomorphic settings and wetland functions as the proposed wetland. Characteristicsof these reference wetlands are used to establish hydrologic, vegetation, soil, or fish populationcriteria; to develop project plans; and to compare against the created or restored wetland toevaluate project success. As distance between the reference wetland and the restoration wetlandincreases, similarities will be reduced (Tobler 1970), as will the usefulness of the referencewetland in evaluating restoration success. It is important to keep in mind that no referencewetland can be a perfect match for a restoration site (White and Walker 1997).

Once a wetland site has been identified and acquired, an ecologically appropriate design must bedeveloped. Before design work actually begins, however, a variety of site-specific data must beobtained. These data include topography, hydrology, hydroperiod, morphology, soils, site

Evaluation Results

2-5

vegetation, and any other relevant ecological parameters (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993, PSE&G1999, Vivian-Smith 2001). This information is then used during the design of the restoration. Itis important that scientists, engineers, or other technical experts with requisite expertise beinvolved with the restoration/creation design.

The design of the site should be based on the watershed or regional data, with particularemphasis on the site-specific data. The design must address the restoration objectives previouslyestablished and incorporate ecological engineering principles. Ecological engineering is arestoration approach whereby a natural process is initiated by humans and completed by nature(Mitsch and Gosselink 1993, Mitsch 2000, National Research Council 2001, Weinsteinet al. 2001).

The initial site work for wetland creation and restoration generally can be completed within thefirst year, including establishment of required hydrologic conditions, soil preparation, andplanting. Soil preparation may require removal of contaminated soils or fill material, or soilsupplementation. In severely degraded wetlands, restoration efforts may include replacingexisting soils, with subsequently improved soil structure and chemistry, as well as providing soilmicroorganisms. Stream channel and coastal wetland restorations often require streambank orshoreline stabilization to prevent erosion and to quickly establish riparian vegetation. Methods ofsoil stabilization include use of natural or artificial fiber rolls or mats in combination with plantmaterials (FISRWG 1998, Blama et al. 1995).

Wetland creation often requires extensive soil contouring and grading to establish the desiredtopography. Tidal marsh restorations have used dredged material to raise the substrate elevationin subtidal areas to intertidal levels (Blama et al. 1995, Garbarino et al. 1995, Callaway 2001,Costa-Pierce and Weinstein 2002). Filled geotextile tubes may be used (and may be combinedwith riprap structures) to provide erosion protection for the dredged material. Elevationalheterogeneity increases biodiversity (e.g., creating patterns of high marsh and low marshwetlands) and can be developed by excavation of selected areas or placement of fill. Sometimessoils are altered by incorporating organic material to decrease bulk density, increase waterholding capacity, and increase productivity. Fine-textured sediments may need to be added tocoarse substrates, or natural sedimentation may be used to establish desired substrate levels andtexture. Where possible, wetland soils are salvaged and used to provide the appropriate substratetexture, chemistry, and microorganisms (Callaway 2001).

Developing the desired hydrological regime is essential to wetland creation or restorationsuccess. Hydrologic modification of the site may require the control of surface water flowentering and exiting the site. This control may be accomplished by the construction of suchstructures as levees, dams, weirs, or gates and may require pumping or diverting surface waterflows. However, such measures generally require continued maintenance and are costly. Naturalsurface water and groundwater patterns are preferable to those that require continued humanintervention. In some locations, the establishment of wetland hydrology by groundwater sourcesis preferable to the use of surface water flows for the successful establishment of native bioticcommunities, because of water level fluctuations, poor water quality, altered water chemistry, orhigh nutrient levels associated with surface water flows. Hydrologic restoration of drainedwetlands may only require the filling or blocking of drainage ditches, or the disabling of

Evaluation Results

2-6

agricultural drain tiles. These tiles are typically excavated and either broken up or removed,allowing natural groundwater flows to reestablish the frequency and duration of soil saturationnecessary for wetland restoration (Admiraal et al. 1997). In some cases, it also may be possibleto install valves in existing drain tiles to allow control of water levels.

Restoration or creation of tidal wetlands involves the establishment of natural tidal flows on thesite (Weinstein et al. 2001, Zajac and Whitlatch 2001, Bakker et al. 2002, Poulakis et al. 2002,Raposa 2002, Swamy et al. 2002, Raposa and Roman 2003). Restoration may be accomplishedby the removal or breaching of existing dikes or levees to restore tidal flow. The establishment ofa network of tidal creeks with a high degree of sinuosity (including small, narrow channeledcreeks with steep banks) can improve development of a suitable hydrologic regime and habitatvalue in tidal marsh projects. Such a network can be developed by excavation of channels withsmall backhoes (Zedler 2001).

In larger-scale projects or where a heavier reliance on ecological engineering occurs,construction of only the higher-order tributaries may be desirable. In these cases, the placementand development of lower-order streams proceeds as a result of natural processes in response tothe hydrodynamics of the site (Weinstein et al. 2000a).

Preparation of the wetland restoration or creation site may require the removal of invasive non-native species or control of destructive animals such as geese and muskrats (Perry et al. 2001).The presence of invasive species such as common reed (Phragmites australis) or purpleloosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) may prevent the successful establishment of native communities.Methods used to control invasive species include applications of herbicides (e.g., glyphosate),prescribed burns, biocontrol (e.g., the release of host-specific beetles [Galerucella spp.]) toeradicate purple loosestrife), or a combination of these approaches. Aerial spraying ofglyphosate, followed by burning, can be effective in removing common reed in large restorationprojects. A combination of cutting and submerging has also been used to remove invasivespecies.

Following removal of invasive species, planting of native wetland and terrestrial vegetationalong a hydrologic gradient may be required (Lindig-Cisneros and Zedler 2002). By using ahydrologically open design, a created or natural wetland can develop a diverse assemblage ofplant species using self-design (or ecological engineering) (Mitch et al. 1999). A temporarycover crop of a non-competitive annual grass (such as annual rye) can be planted to stabilizesoils and reduce erosion potential. In some cases, revegetation of the wetland restoration sitefrom the natural seed bank is possible. Natural revegetation may also be effective if salvagedwetland soils are used, providing the duration of soil storage was minimized or if an adequatenatural seed source is available in the vicinity. Native plant communities are often planted orotherwise established in upland buffer areas to reduce adverse influences of adjacent areas of thewatershed. Planting can be by direct seeding, or by installing live plugs, bare root seedlings, orcuttings. Planting can be done both manually and by mechanical planters (Sullivan 2001, NRCS2000). Plants may be salvaged from the wetland restoration site before initiating soilmodification or from a wetland site being eliminated. Greenhouse-grown plants may require aperiod of adjustment to natural conditions, such as sun exposure or soil salinity (if used in saltmarsh projects). In addition, the introduction of vegetation and sediment cores from natural

Evaluation Results

2-7

wetlands and introduction of poorly dispersing invertebrates may lead to the development of amore natural invertebrate community in a shorter time (Brady et al. 2002).

More than 95% of commercially harvested fish and shellfish in the United States are wetlanddependent (Feierabend and Zelazny 1987). The degree of dependence of fish on wetlandsdepends upon the species and type of wetland habitat. Virtually all freshwater fish speciesdepend on wetlands for part of their life history (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Coastal wetlandsof the northern Gulf of Mexico, because of their flooding and fragmentation patterns, sustainlarge populations of penaeid shrimps and blue crabs (Zimmerman et al. 2000); Pacific Northwestanadromous fish, such as salmon, depend on estuarine wetlands, particularly regarding thestructural complexity and scale of the estuarine landscape (Simenstad et al. 2000); and shellfish,such as mussels and oysters, benefit from estuarine marsh production of suspended materials(such as phytoplankton) and contribute to the exchange of inorganic nutrients between thebenthic zone and water column (Dame et al. 2000).

While salt marshes have been demonstrated to serve as important nurseries for resident andtransient fishes (Gunter 1956, Nixon and Oviatt 1973, Daiber 1977, Weinstein 1979, Boesch andTurner 1984, Rozas et al. 1988, Rountree and Able 1992, Ayvazian et al. 1992, Minello andZimmerman 1992, Baltz et al. 1993, Kneib 1997, Deegan et al. 2000, Beck et al. 2001), there aregaps in the knowledge of the life histories of fish and their use of salt marsh habitats (Rountreeand Able 1992, 1993, Kneib 1997). The available data suggest that salt marshes function as sitesfor reproduction, food, and predator refuge for fishes and other animals and therefore promotegrowth and survival (Thayer et al. 1978, Boesch and Turner 1984, Kneib 1987, 1997, Deeganet al. 2000, Miller et al. 2003).

Habitat for fish and wildlife has been successfully established in created or restored wetlands(Kusler and Kentula 1990, National Research Council 2001, Rozas and Minello 2001, Weinsteinet al. 2001, Muir Hotaling et al. 2002, Poulakis et al. 2002). Restoration can often rapidlyestablish a wetland community, including invertebrates and soil microorganisms, andsubsequently develop habitat for fish spawning, foraging, or refuge. In created tidal marshes,frequently inundated low marsh vegetation can reach biomass levels equivalent to natural marshin 3 years, although seldom flooded high marsh vegetation may take more than 15 years (Craftet al. 2002). Faunal reestablishment in restored marshes, particularly in coastal wetlands, hasbeen well documented (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993, Zedler et al. 1997, Able et al. 2000, 2001,Lathrop et al. 2000, Tupper and Able 2000, Wainwright et al. 2000, Weinstein et al. 2000b,Levin and Talley 2002, Miller and Able 2002, Roman et al. 2002, Teo and Able 2003). Fishcommunities often develop in 5 years or less, although at least 10 years and possibly 20 years ormore may be required for the development of mature wetland communities similar to naturalundisturbed wetlands and development of full habitat function (Simenstad and Thom 1996,Swamy et al. 2002, Craft et al. 1999, Havens et al. 2002, Hampel et al. 2003). Forested wetlandsmay take considerably longer to restore to maturity (NRCS 2000, Haynes and Moore 1988).

Wetlands also may be designed to improve the quality of surface water runoff from upland areasprone to erosion or containing contaminants, such as runoff from agricultural fields. With properdesign, created or restored wetlands that intercept surface water flows can reduce the velocity of

Evaluation Results

2-8

surface flows and capture sediments, nutrients, or contaminants by the establishment ofvegetation communities, thereby improving downstream water quality.

Developing a wetland creation or restoration project will require coordination with local,regional, state, and federal regulators. State environmental agencies review National PollutantDischarge Elimination System (NPDES) permit applications for cooling water systems andcoastal development permits and would be expected to develop guidelines for compensating fishlosses and identifying the type and amount of wetlands that would be created, restored, orprotected to provide compensation. Methods and procedures for monitoring of fish populationsas well as for monitoring the created or restored wetlands may be specified. In addition tocoordination with USEPA and state agencies, involvement of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers(USACE) may be required if the work site involves existing wetlands, as may likely occur withrestoration projects.

2.1.3 Wetland Banking�State of the Science and Current Use

Wetland banks are developed by the same methods discussed above for wetland creation andrestoration projects. The establishment of a large wetland, as through a wetland bank, may resultin greater success than small, individual wetland creation projects. For this reason, compensationrequiring relatively small wetland areas may be more efficiently accomplished in combinationwith other wetland creation or restoration efforts. Following successful project completion andapprovals for use by applicable state and federal agencies, areas of the wetland bank becomeavailable as “credits.” Credits in an existing wetland bank could be purchased to provide thewetland area required for compensation for CWIS impacts. These areas would be subsequently“debited” or removed from future availability. Wetlands banking would allow the rapidfulfillment of compensation requirements for CWIS impacts, since the required wetland areawould be constructed and performing desired functions at the time of the impact determination.Wetland banks have been established in many states. Many have been developed by the statedepartments of transportation to compensate for multiple wetland losses resulting from roadconstruction. Banks also are often used by land developers to fulfill Section 404 permitrequirements.

Currently, 30 states have developed guidelines for the establishment and operation of wetlandbanks (Mehan 2001, VMRC 1998, DOA 2002) that are designed to ensure the long-term successof the wetland and appropriate allocation of credits. In addition, five federal agencies haveestablished policy guidance for wetland banks that includes planning, establishment, criteria foruse, long-term management, and monitoring (USEPA et al. 1995). Monitoring and maintenanceof the wetland is generally performed by the bank sponsor and is designed and implemented inaccordance with the authorizing agencies.

Wetland bank credits are generally determined by one of two measurementframeworksacreage or habitat units. The specific method is identified in the operationalguidelines approved for each bank. Credits may be determined in terms of wetland acres, basedupon the number of acres within a particular bank required to provide compensation for aspecific wetland impact, and generally interpreted as a mitigation ratio. Wetland bank credits

Evaluation Results

2-9

also may be expressed as habitat units (Wilkey et al. 1994, McCrain 1992, Fernandez and Karp1998), reflecting the habitat value of the wetland being credited, based on Habitat EvaluationProcedures (USDA 1980). Costs per acre for mitigation bank credits range widely (e.g., $2,300for a wetland bank in Missouri [MLDDA 2000]; $13,000 to $20,000 in Ohio [OLSC 2001]; and$50,000 to $55, 000 in Florida [Szabo and Bleichfeld 1998]).

2.1.4 Applicability for Mitigating CWIS Operational Impacts

The impacts of CWIS that could be addressed by wetland restoration, creation, and banking arethe entrainment and impingement losses of eggs, larvae, juvenile, and adult fish. Implementationof wetland restoration and creation projects, or purchase of bank credits, could be directed tobenefit the affected fish species, invertebrate food production, and aquatic and terrestrial biotaand processes. In some cases, in addition to benefiting target species impacted by CWIS, thewetland project may also benefit other, perhaps less desirable, species (e.g., carp). However,consideration of such species would be included in project goals determined by permittingauthorities. The value of a restoration or creation project may be increased if the project isdesigned to benefit commercially or recreationally valuable species or threatened or endangeredspecies. For example, restoration of a salt marsh in Delaware Bay created conditions favorable tothe mummichug (Fundulus heteroclitus), which is an important dietary component of theAtlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) and striped bass (Morone saxatilis) (Teo and Able2003). The ultimate goals of this enhancement alternative are to increase production, survival,and growth of selected fish species by providing or improving spawning, nursery, and foraginghabitat availability or quality. These goals would be realized as increased growth of juvenilesand adults, increased reproduction, increased survival of juveniles and adults, and improvedcondition. The impacts of impingement might be offset by increased growth and survival ofjuveniles and adults, while larval entrainment might be offset by increased production, survival,and recruitment of larvae. The impacts of egg entrainment might be offset by increased eggproduction, survival, and hatching success. Implementation of this enhancement alternativewould be expected to result in a long-term increase in early adult lifestage of target species.Additional benefits resulting from wetland restoration and creation, that are not directly relatedto CWIS impacts but have public value, could include increased water quality, increase in habitatfor terrestrial or other aquatic species, increase in the food base for fish and wildlife, increasedbiodiversity, and increases in flood control. Methods to determine the form of wetlandrestoration or creation or amount required to offset CWIS impacts may include an ecological riskassessment (ERA) framework (EPRI 2001). The ERA framework can be used to assess the riskof adverse ecological impact and compare potential ecological benefits of possible alternativesused to reduce any ecological impacts.

Wetland creations, restorations, or banks would typically be located along the body of waterwhere the CWIS-related impacts to fish occurs, or along its tributaries. However, the locationcould vary if the compensation goal is directed toward fish populations other than those directlyimpacted or other wildlife species as determined by the permitting authorities.

The preferred location of the restoration would be close to the area where CWIS operationalimpacts were being incurred, thereby increasing the likelihood that the restoration would benefit

Evaluation Results

2-10

the impacted fish species. The restoration site-selection process should also consider the ecologyof the species affected by CWIS operations, or of the target species to be benefited by therestoration. In the case of an estuarine power plant, many of the species involved are coastalmigratory species that spawn over large geographic regions within specific ecological zones(e.g., weakfish [Cynoscion reglis] spawn in poly-mesohaline regions.) On the other hand, somespecies (spot [Leiostomus xanthus] and Atlantic croaker) spawn offshore, and the juveniles usemany of the estuaries (meso to polyhaline regions) along the coast for nursery functions. Thelocation of the wetland would not have to be within the same watershed as the power plant.

As directed by the New Jersey PDES permit for its Salem Generating Station, located on theDelaware Estuary, PSE&G was required to restore a minimum of 10,000 acres of tidal marshwetlands for fish breeding and nursery areas (Patterson 2001). Under the Estuary EnhancementProgram subsequently developed by PSE&G, more than 20,500 acres of land in and around theDelaware Estuary has been restored and/or preserved (Weinstein et al. 1997, 2000a, 2001,RAE-ERF 1999, Able et al. 2000, Tupper and Able 2000, Miller and Able 2002). The10,000-acre target was derived partially by modeling, which resulted in a lower value, andpartially to accommodate uncertainties (Teal and Weinstein 2002). The San Onofre NuclearGenerating Station, located on the southern California Pacific coastline, was required in itscoastal development permit to restore 150 acres of tidal marsh (CCC 2001). The restoration site,San Dieguito Lagoon, is located approximately 30 miles south of the station, along the SanDieguito River, which discharges into the Pacific Ocean.

Following a determination that CWIS operation has resulted in entrainment and impingementlosses of fish, an environmental enhancement method would be selected to offset those losses.Section 4 of this report presents approaches that may be used to determine the appropriateenhancement method for a particular CWIS impact. The mitigation of impacts throughimplementation of wetland creation, restoration, or banking would involve an initialdetermination of the type and amount of wetland area that would be required to compensate forthe number of fish eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults impacted by the CWIS. A number ofmethods are currently used in determining requirements for mitigation of wetland impacts undervarious state and federal wetland programs. These methods and others that may be applicable toa determination of wetland type and area for CWIS impact mitigation are discussed inSection 4.4.

2.1.5 Cost

Costs associated with implementation of a wetland creation or restoration project may bemoderate to high, increasing with wetland area, degree of hydrologic modification required,extent of substrate modification, and amount of excavation or grading. The need for landcontouring generally results in higher costs for wetland creation. The extent to which a naturalwetland system has been degraded will affect the types and degree of restoration efforts neededto return wetland functions and will affect the costs. Soil replacement or removal of fill materialcan greatly increase the cost, especially if excavation and disposal of contaminated soils isinvolved.

Evaluation Results

2-11

The total costs for wetland restoration and creation projects include the costs of development anddesign, land acquisition, construction/implementation, maintenance, and monitoring. Estimatesor summaries of project costs often omit costs of a number of these aspects, such as design costsor monitoring costs. In addition, reported costs for wetland creation and restoration vary widelybecause of site-specific differences in implementation and contractor costs.

Example cost estimates for a number of tidal marsh restoration projects range across two ordersof magnitude:

• Arcata Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary, Arcata, California (total of 315 acres) developed bycity of Arcata: $6,127 per acre (Neander 2002).

• Montezuma Wetlands Project, Solano County California: $10,000 to $30,000 per acre. Costsfor monitoring currently at $250,000 per year and projected to increase (Levine 2002).

• Hudson/Raritan Bay, New Jersey (currently 20 acres, 300 acres planned), developed by agroup of federal agencies, state, and municipal governments: $100,000 to $250,000 per acre(Sacco 2002).

• San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, California (total of 150 acres): $573,000 per acre(projected) (Kay 2002).

• Estimated costs for tidal marsh, developed by USEPA, based on 8 replanting/reseedingprojects (USEPA 2001a): $10,344 per acre; estimate for freshwater wetlands based on15 projects: $12,047 to $18,535 per acre.

• Salem Generating Station (Estuary Enhancement Program), Delaware Bay (10,700 acres ofactive restoration), capital, O&M, and monitoring costs: $9,350 per acre (J. Pantazes pers.comm.)

Janvrin (2002) presented estimates of habitat restoration costs for the Upper Mississippi Riversystem. Information included acres to be restored, estimated costs per acre of restoration, andmaintenance costs following restoration. For example, 100,000 acres in need of marshrestoration were reported. Restoration costs were estimated at $4,000 per acre, with operationand maintenance costs estimated at $250 per acre.

2.1.6 Monitoring and Maintenance

Three reasons for monitoring restored wetlands are (1) documenting a restoration program’sperformance, (2) validating the restoration design criteria, and (3) supporting adaptivemanagement of restored sites (e.g., correcting design or construction mistakes) (STAC 2002).See Section 4.4 for further discussion on adaptive management.

Monitoring typically is required to confirm the satisfactory establishment of hydrology and bioticcommunity goals (e.g., vegetation, fish, and wildlife species diversity and density). For wetlandsdesigned to compensate for CWIS impacts, the monitoring activities also may address use and/orproduction of target fish species in the wetland or the development of wetland characteristicsassociated with suitable habitat (such as for spawning, foraging, or refuge) for target fish species.Monitoring elements may include vegetation cover data to demonstrate the attainment of a

Evaluation Results

2-12

minimum cover of vegetation (as may be specified in a permit), or species composition data toevaluate the absence of nonnative or invasive species and the predominance of species associatedwith mature wetland communities of the desired type (USACE 1998). Vegetation monitoring canalso quantify the amount of primary production for subsequent estimates of the production offish and other aquatic organisms to replace losses. Aerial photography sometimes is used toidentify certain vegetation types or unvegetated areas. Required monitoring also may includegeomorphology and groundwater and surface water hydrology over the monitoring period todemonstrate the attainment of a specified hydrologic regime applicable to the wetland typedesired. Under the requirements of the authorizing permit, monitoring may be required for5 years or until the goals of the project are met (as for CWA Section 404 permits). Longer timespans may be required for complicated and/or larger sites (Perry et al. 2001).

The fluxes resulting from the marsh’s primary production are very difficult to measure (Adam1990). The in-situ production of fish biomass is a resulting component of the primary productionof the marsh. An example of this type of estimate was presented by PSE&G (1999.) Field datafrom monitoring studies on fish abundance in weirs (marsh plain habitat) and otter trawls andpush trawls (marsh channel habitat) were used to estimate the abundance and biomass of fish inthe marshes. Production was estimated by multiplying the mean biomass for a species by theproduction-to-biomass (P to B) ratio for that species as estimated for Delaware Bay (Monaco1995). The production of small fishes was then used to grow additional predator species (stripedbass [Morone saxatilis], weakfish [Cynoscion regalis], and white perch [Morone americana])using bioenergetics models for the predator species and site-specific information on growth,water temperatures, and energy density of fish.

Production estimates based on the capture of organisms in the marshes tend to underestimateactual production because trawls and weirs do not capture fish with complete efficiency. Inaddition, the trawls, weirs, and push nets employed in field studies do not effectively samplelarger predatory fishes, such as white perch and striped bass. The bioenergetics approachsimilarly underestimates production. This approach accounts only for fish actually capturedwithin the marshes or produced by predators feeding on fish produced in the salt marsh, but doesnot include production from detrital food webs, a source believed to be very important in theDelaware Bay.

A monitoring plan is developed at the time the project goals and objectives are defined andperformance criteria for the successful restoration or creation are established. Performancecriteria should be directly linked to the project goals. Measurable aspects of the restored systemare evaluated against the performance criteria (Weinstein et al. 1997, 2000a, Weinstein 1998,Fell et al. 2000) to determine the progress of the system in meeting the goals. The spatial andtemporal variation in fish and invertebrate communities should be considered in developing amonitoring plan (Desmond et al. 2002). Reference sites (as discussed above) are selected thatreflect the undisturbed condition for the type of wetland being restored or created within thesame ecological region and similar landscape setting.

Monitoring should be conducted before the restoration measures are implemented in order todetermine baseline conditions, during implementation of the measures (implementationmonitoring) to verify that the measures were correctly performed, and after completion of

Evaluation Results

2-13

implementation (effectiveness monitoring) to determine if the restoration measures haveachieved the desired results. Effectiveness monitoring should measure indicators that are directlytied to the project goals and that can be evaluated to determine which aspects of the restorationare functioning as planned. For example, the diversity and density of fish species associated withthe wetland could be included in monitoring, particularly if species or use levels are identified inproject goals to offset impacts of impingement and entrainment. Failure of a project to achievethe objectives of the restoration plan may require monitoring to determine if the restorationassumptions or the monitoring indicators were correct (validation monitoring).

Short-term monitoring goals may include absence of erosion or sedimentation, minimumacceptable hydrodynamic conditions, vegetation cover and diversity, absence of invasive species,and use by desired fish populations. Restored and created wetlands may also be monitored toidentify changes in wetland quality or functions, such as erosion, insufficient growth of wetlandspecies, or introduction of invasive species.

If the wetland is designed on the basis of ecological engineering, only minimal maintenance maybe necessary. Maintenance may be required both during and after the initial monitoring period.During the early period of wetland development, before biotic community goals are met,maintenance activities may be required. However, depending on the design of the site,maintenance also may be necessary as a long-term requirement to ensure the continued successof the wetland. This maintenance may include repairing eroding areas, increasing populations ofdesired species, and removal of undesirable species. Methods that may be implemented throughmaintenance programs include herbicide application, prescribed burns, cutting, or the installationof erosion control materials. Prescribed burns are used in the long-term management ofcommunity types that are adapted to periodic fires. Burns are conducted frequently during earlyperiods of community development (e.g., a 1- to 3-year interval) and at a decreased frequency forwell-established native communities. Prescribed burns benefit native fire-adapted species andimpede the growth and development of nonnative species.

An adaptive management approach greatly increases the potential for success of a wetlandcreation or restoration project. Adaptive management is a process for identifying and meetingenvironmental management goals by an iterative process of monitoring and engineering response(Holling 1978). This process is characterized by the systematic acquisition and application ofreliable information for the purpose of improving management of natural resources over time(Wilhere 2002). The ultimate objective of adaptive management is sustainable management ofecosystems in the context of human development (Thom 1996).

In highly complex ecosystems that have very site-specific ecological processes, effectivemanagement can only be accomplished by obtaining and applying site-specific data (Haney andPower 1996, Walters and Holling 1990). This is particularly true for tidal wetlands, in whichcomplexity is a function of, among other things, latitude, distance from the sea, local relative sealevel rise, atmospheric and gravitational tidal effects, freshwater input, topography, substratetypes, ecological history, and disturbance (Adam 1990, Kemp et al. 1992). Given the level ofcomplexity in the ecology of tidal wetlands and our inability to completely understand the detailsof the functioning of these systems, adaptive management is the appropriate framework underwhich a successful large-scale environmental restoration can be conducted (Thom 1996).

Evaluation Results

2-14

Adaptive management closely ties management approaches and techniques to the monitoringprogram. Prescribed management actions may be modified, suspended if no longer needed, ornew actions added to address changes in wetland characteristics. Consistent evaluation of themonitoring data enables a rapid response to threats that may develop (such as substrate erosionor invasion of nonnative species) by modifying prescribed treatments based on changes in sitecharacteristics.

2.1.7 Advantages and Limitations

Wetland creation, restoration, and banking would enhance fish populations and their invertebratefood base. Application of the current understanding of wetland creation and restoration methods,in conjunction with operation of a well-developed monitoring program, could result in effectivecompensation of losses from CWIS impacts. The advantages and limitations of wetland creation,restoration, and banking as an environmental enhancement are listed in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1Advantages and Limitations of Wetland Creation, Restoration,and Banking for Mitigating CWIS Operational Impacts.

Advantages Limitations

Wetlands established forcompensation can mitigate directly forlosses.

Wetlands established forcompensation may also providenumerous other benefits havingpublicly recognized value, includinghabitat for wildlife, water qualityimprovement, flood control, andrecreation.

The value of the wetlands establishedwill extend beyond the life of theimpacting facility and provide long-term benefits.

The compensation for wetlandimpacts through wetland banking canbe more cost-effective than thecreation or restoration of wetlandsand provide greater flexibility forfulfilling compensation requirements.

Banking may allow multiple partieswith similar goals to completemitigation requirements effectively,allow benefits of larger-scale projects,and provide immediate mitigation.

The species that benefit from theenhancement may be different thanthose that are impacted by CWIS(which may include undesirablespecies).

A long-term commitment tomonitoring and maintenance of thewetlands may be required.

Although the availability of wetlandbanks including the desired wetlandtype may be widespread, wetlandsbenefiting the target fish species maynot be available.

Evaluation Results

2-15

2.1.8 Summary

Wetlands perform important functions within the landscape, including functions that provideforaging and spawning habitat for fish and protection from predators, and that improve waterquality both in the water body as well as the surface runoff entering the wetland, and benefit theaquatic food base.

Ancillary benefits that may result from wetlands restoration include (1) amelioration of thenegative effects of flooding; (2) increased diversity of wildlife species of concern, such asmigrating shorebirds, due to increased habitat; (3) increased recreational opportunities for bothactive (hunting and fishing) and passive (bird watching and nature study) activities;(4) environmental education; and (5) improved water quality.

The science of marsh ecology has made substantial advances since Teal (1962) published a paperproposing detrital export as a major contribution to estuarine and coastal productivity (e.g., seeWeinstein and Kreeger 2000). The improved understanding of wetland ecology has allowedbetter planning, site selection, design, construction methodology, and monitoring of wetlandcreation and restoration projects. This improved understanding has also resulted in improvedsuccess in the creation and restoration of wetlands.

Created and restored wetlands have been shown to effectively support populations of many fishspecies, and the increased habitat could be used to offset impacts of CWISs. More importantly,by implementing the wetland creations and restorations through ecological engineering, thesesites should provide their direct aquatic ecological and ancillary benefits long after the lossesfrom the CWIS cease.

Key developments in wetland restoration science can be tracked through the American FisheriesSociety Early Life History Section (at http://www2.ncsu.edu/elhs/–see Stages newsletter, or atwww.marine.rutgers.edu/rumfs/elh.htm) and through the Estuarine Research Foundation (athttp://erf.org or http://estuaries.org). In April 2003, Restore America’s Estuaries (RAE) willsponsor a national conference in Baltimore, Maryland, at which many of the technical issuesdiscussed in this section will be explored (www.estuaries.org).

2.2 Creation and Restoration of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Beds

Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) performs a variety of roles in aquatic ecosystems,including serving as food, habitat, and/or shelter for a variety of waterfowl, fish, shellfish, andinvertebrates. It contributes to important aquatic chemical processes, such as absorbing nutrientsand oxygenating the water column. Dense beds of SAV also serve to attenuate wave energy andslow water currents, thereby allowing suspended sediments to settle out of the water column,reducing resuspension of sediments, and reducing erosion of shoreline areas. Seagrasses(estuarine and marine SAV) occur in all coastal states of the United States except for Georgiaand South Carolina (where freshwater inflows, high turbidities, and tidal amplitudes inhibit theiroccurrence), and can be extremely productive habitats (Thayer et al. 1997).

Evaluation Results

2-16

The health of SAV habitats in many areas has been impacted by anthropogenic and naturalcauses. There have been large decreases in the presence of SAV in some areas where ithistorically occurred. Declines in the presence of SAV have been attributed to natural populationcycles, weather events (e.g., droughts and hurricanes), overgrazing by fish and other biota,industrial pollutants, and agricultural herbicides. Increased turbidity (from sediments eroded intowaterways and algal blooms caused by excessive nutrient inputs from agricultural and urbanrunoff) also has been implicated as a major cause for the decline in SAV abundance anddistribution in Chesapeake Bay (Hurley 1991). Excessive physical disturbance of SAV fromfishing gear and the propellers of vessels also can lead to declines in SAV abundance (AtlanticStates Marine Fisheries Commission 2000).

Because of the ecological importance of SAV to many fish species (Hughes et al. 2002, Wyda etal. 2002, Heck et al. 1989 [see also Section 2.2.3]), the recovery of SAV in areas where it hasdeclined may be a way of compensating for potential losses of fish due to impingement andentrainment from CWIS operations.

2.2.1 State of the Science and Current Use

In recent years there have been considerable advances in understanding the interactions betweenenvironmental conditions and growth and survival of SAV, as well as improvements in theplanning, site selection, and techniques needed to successfully plant and restore beds of SAV.Fonseca et al. (1998) stated that the ability to successfully plant SAV for restoration ormitigation purposes has progressed to the point that it should no longer be consideredexperimental. Fonseca et al. (1998) also reviewed 138 documents dated through 1995 thatreported on field studies with seagrass and found that successful seagrass planting had occurredin all major regions of the United States.

Perhaps the best-known SAV restoration effort (and the effort with the longest history andgreatest scope) has been a recovery program in the Chesapeake Bay. This regional restorationeffort had its beginnings in research initiated by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in 1978as an experimental program with eelgrass. Since then, the restoration program has evolved into abaywide, multiagency effort that has been successful in getting SAV established in many areasof the Chesapeake Bay watershed (Orth 2002a,b, VIMS 2002) and has an interim goal to restore114,000 acres with SAV baywide (Chesapeake Bay Program 2000).

At the national level, the National Estuary Program was established in 1987 by amendments tothe CWA to identify, restore, and protect nationally significant estuaries of the United States. Toaccomplish these goals, the National Estuary Program targets a broad range of issues, includingSAV restoration, in the 28 estuary programs under its purview (USEPA 2001b). For example,the Tampa Bay (Florida) Estuary Program has a goal of restoring 12,350 acres of seagrass habitatand preserving an additional 25,600 acres (Tampa Bay Estuary Program 2000).

Evaluation Results

2-17

2.2.2 Methods for Restoring and Establishing SAV

In general, restoration of SAV habitats involves protecting remaining vegetation from impactingfactors in order to allow recovery to proceed naturally, planting (i.e., transplanting raised plants,transplanting plants from another location, or using seeds), or both. If the reduced condition ofthe SAV is due to water quality degradation, recovery efforts through protection or planting willlikely be unsuccessful unless the water quality impacts are addressed first. Addressing that issuemay require action throughout the entire watershed and can be an extremely large and costlyundertaking. For example, declines in historic abundance of SAV in Chesapeake Bay since the1930s has been primarily attributed to decreasing water clarity as a result of nutrient input(which increases the abundance of algal blooms) and sediment inputs (which reduce lightpenetration in the water column). In recognition of this problem, one major focus of theChesapeake Bay Program has been to restore suitable conditions in the watershed through suchactivities as stream restoration, creation of forested stream buffers to reduce erosion and captureexcess nutrients, and requiring management practices that reduce sedimentation or agriculturalrunoff. These efforts may have contributed to the recent success that has been achieved in SAVplanting and restoration in some areas of the bay.

Once water quality issues are addressed, SAV restoration efforts may be undertaken. If the goalis to restore an area in which there is already some SAV present, efforts can focus on addressingphysical factors that are preventing the optimal growth and survival of the SAV. Examples ofphysical factors that might contribute to SAV decline include disturbance of the SAV areas byfishing gear or fishing practices (e.g., trawling or clam or scallop dredging), boat propellers, orovergrazing by various biota (e.g., waterfowl or sea urchins). Methods for evaluating andcorrecting such disturbances are addressed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission(2000) and typically include various measures for controlling access to the SAV areas orrelocating the disturbing activities. One common means for trying to reduce grazing by biota isto put exclosures around the SAV area until the health of the beds has improved. The length oftime required for such recovery will depend upon the species of SAV and the portions of theplants (e.g., reproductive versus non-reproductive tissues) that are affected (Table 2-2). It mayalso be important to consider the types of fish species likely to be attracted to a particular type ofSAV, since the differences in structural features among species may affect the types of fish thatwill be attracted and supported.

If the goal is to restore an area where SAV is not present, it is essential that adequateconsideration be given to identifying a suitable location and appropriate SAV species for thatlocation. Fonseca et al. (1998) identified site selection as the most important step in the SAVrestoration and mitigation process. Some important factors to consider when evaluating thesuitability of a planting location and deciding which SAV species a site is suitable for include:

• Timing and duration of immersion (related to elevation),

• Sediment stability and thickness,

• Nutrient conditions,

• Turbidity, salinity, and temperature regimes,

Evaluation Results

2-18

Table 2-2Estimates of Relative Ability of Selected SAV Species to Recover from Injuriesto Key Features and Overall Estimates for Injury Recovery Potential.

Injury Recovery Potential

SpeciesAsexual Injury(to meristems)

Sexual Injury (toreproductive structures)

Overall IntrinsicRecoveryPotential

Zostera marina(eelgrass)

Moderate Moderate and variable Moderate

Halodule wrightii(shoalgrass)

High Low High

Ruppia maritima(widgeon grass)

Moderate High and variable High

Thalassia testudinum(turtlegrass)

Low Low and variable Low

Syringodium filiforme(manatee grass)

Moderate Moderate Moderate

Halophila spp. High Very high High

Vallisneria americana(wild celery)

Low High Moderate

Potamogeton perfoliatus(redhead grass)

Moderate Moderate Moderate

Potamogeton pectinatus(sago pondweed)

Moderate High Moderate

Zanichellia palustris(horned pondweed)

High High High

Elodea canadensis(common elodea)

High High High

Source: Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (2000).

• The amount of wave action the site is exposed to, and

• The exposure to grazing fauna that might feed on the SAV.

Ultimately, if SAV is not currently present at a location, it is important to carefully considerpertinent factors that will influence the success of an effort to establish SAV there.

A number of methods have been used to plant SAV. The most common and successful methodsinclude planting plugs (cores of seagrass, rhizomes, and sediments taken from another location),stapling rhizomes of transplanted plants in place, transplanting shoots in peat pots, and sowing

Evaluation Results

2-19

seeds (Fonseca et al. 1998). In some cases, fertilizer has been added to sediments before or afterplanting in order to improve planting success, but the results have been mixed. Additional detailson these and other planting methods are reviewed by Fonseca et al. (1998). Some otherconsiderations that may affect the difficulty of planting SAV include water depth, sediment type,and exposure of the area to wave action.


For many fish species, SAV is considered important for maintaining population levels either byproviding spawning and nursery habitat for valuable game and commercial fish or for their prey.Laney (1997) conducted a limited review of the use of SAV by 33 species of fish andinvertebrates important to fisheries along the east coast of the United States and found that mostof those species had some level of dependence on SAV habitat (Table 2-3). The South AtlanticFishery Management Council (1997) clearly identified that SAV is considered an importantresource, both ecologically and economically. Hughes et al. (2002) found that loss of SAV intwo New England estuaries resulted in decreased diversity of the fish community. The potentialfor SAV restoration to benefit fish by affecting survival, production, growth, and reproduction isdiscussed below.

Survival. It is a well-studied phenomenon that as the structure of aquatic vegetation increases (atleast up to a point), the predation-risk of small-bodied fishes from larger piscivorous fishes isreduced. In fact, predation avoidance is probably a major factor that leads to the higher densitiesof fish and invertebrates commonly observed in vegetated habitats. Hughes et al. (2002) alsofound that the species most seriously affected by eelgrass loss in southern New England weresmall-bodied forage fish. Many studies have examined the effects of predation risk (and foragingsuccess) on vegetation use by fish (e.g., Hayse and Wissing 1996, Savino et al. 1992, Gotceitas1990a,b, Holbrook and Schmitt 1988, Rozas and Odum 1988). Increased survival of fish,especially smaller fish such as larvae and juveniles, could lead to increases in population levelsby improving recruitment. Therefore, the development of additional SAV habitat in areas wheresuch habitat is limited may be a viable option to compensate for losses of fish from CWISoperations.

Fish Production and Growth. It is clear that the density of many types of fish and invertebrateprey is often higher in habitats containing SAV than in surrounding habitats containing lessstructure (e.g., Wyda et al. 2002, Hughes et al. 2002). In a review of the ecology of seagrassmeadows of the western coast of Florida, Zieman and Zieman (1989) cited a number of studiesthat reported higher densities of invertebrates and fish in SAV than in other surrounding habitats.As discussed above, there are many studies (e.g., Hayse and Wissing 1996, Savino et al. 1992,Gotceitas 1990a,b, Holbrook and Schmitt 1988, Rozas and Odum 1988) that address hypothesesabout whether fish utilize SAV primarily because it increases survival by reducing the risk ofpredation or whether it provides a richer source of food.

Evaluation Results

2-20

Table 2-3Use of SAV by Selected Fish and Invertebrate Species Important to Fisherieson the Eastern Coast of the United States.

Species Use of SAV Habitat

Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) Direct use of SAV probably low, but possibility of somespawning in SAV.

American eel (Anguilla rostrata) Yellow stages occur in SAV during the estuarine phaseof their life history; probably not obligate SAV users.

American lobster (Homarus americanus) Preferred settling habitat for larvae.

American shad (Alosa sapidissima) Direct use of SAV probably low, but information aboutearly life stages is limited.

Atlantic croaker (Micropogonius undulatus) Juveniles use SAV beds in spring and early summer.

Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) Some level of trophic linkage likely, but direct use of SAVis not extensive.

Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) Detrital SAV used as a food source.

Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus) Some linkage likely for juveniles, but dependence isprobably limited.

Bay scallop (Argopecten irradians) Adults prefer to inhabit SAV beds and juveniles willpreferentially settle in SAV if the stem density is not toohigh.

Black drum (Pogonias chromis) Do not appear to be heavily reliant on SAV.

Black seabass (Centropristis striata) Juveniles use SAV, but dependence on SAV as nurseryareas uncertain.

Blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) Use SAV, when available, as foraging habitat and asrefuge for molting adults.

Blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) Direct use of SAV probably low, but possibility of somespawning in SAV.

Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) Some linkage is likely through prey, but little direct use.

Brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus) Juvenile recruitment rates are high near SAV; SAV isimportant for shrimp in some areas, but adults are notobligate SAV users.

Hickory shad (Alosa mediocris) Direct use of SAV probably low, but information aboutearly life stages is limited.

Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) Some limited use of SAV appears likely.

Evaluation Results

2-21

Table 2-3 (Cont.)

Species Use of SAV Habitat

Pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum) Highly reliant on SAV as nursery habitat and are notabundant in areas where SAV is absent.

Rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) May spawn on SAV; and juveniles may use SAV asnursery habitat.

Red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) Very dependent during juvenile phase; larvae use SAVbeds spring-summer.

Scup (Stenotomus chrysops) May use SAV as foraging habitat, but extent of use notwell known.

Southern flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma) Juveniles may use SAV.

Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorousmaculata)

Not directly associated with SAV, but rely heavily on preythat use SAV.

Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) Juveniles use SAV as refuge and for food resources.

Spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus) Spawns in SAV; juveniles use SAV as nursery areas;maximum abundance is in areas where SAV isabundant.

Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) Not highly dependent; some prey species are dependenton SAV.

Striped mullet (Mugil cephalus) Appear to be closely linked with SAV, feeding onepiphytes and, possibly, directly on SAV.

Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) SAV beds are important to juveniles and adults.

Tautog (Tautoga onitis) Both adults and juveniles use SAV on a seasonal basisfor spawning, foraging, and cover.

Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) Both juveniles and adult forage in and adjacent to SAVbeds in areas where SAV is present; alternative habitatsused in Georgia and South Carolina where SAV is notpresent.

White mullet (Mugil curema) Juveniles use eelgrass beds in spring and early summer.

White shrimp (Penaeus setiferus) Does not appear to rely heavily on SAV.

Winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus) Juveniles may forage in and near SAV beds, but growthrate in SAV appears to be lower than in other availablehabitats.

Source: Laney (1997).

Evaluation Results

2-22

Reproduction. While many studies have reported on the occurrence of juvenile and adult fishesin SAV, relatively few studies have dealt with the settlement in and use of SAV by larval fishes.In Chesapeake Bay, for example, seagrass beds are important for fish that brood eggs (e.g.,silverstripe halfbeak, Hyporhamphus unifasciatus) and for fishes with demersal eggs (e.g., roughsilverside, Membras martinica) (Thayer et al. 1997). Fish that spawn in the Chesapeake Bay areaduring winter and early spring are unlikely to require seagrass habitat for spawning because SAVnaturally dies back during that period. However, larvae of fish that spawn during spring throughsummer would likely utilize SAV as nursery areas. Species that have larvae present during thisperiod and that are known to use SAV habitats include anchovies (Anchoa spp.), northernpipefish (Syngnathus fuscus), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), southern kingfish (Menticirrhusamericanus), red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), silver perch (Bairdiella chrysoura), roughsilverside, feather blenny (Hypsoblennius hentzi), and halfbeaks (Thayer et al. 1997).

In other regions, larval use of SAV may be somewhat different from that observed inChesapeake Bay because of differences in SAV growing patterns and fish spawning seasons.Thayer et al. (1997) indicated that SAV is present almost year-round in some areas of NorthCarolina, and larval and early juvenile fishes are present in those SAV beds during much of theyear. Some important commercial and sport fish such as gag grouper (Mycteroperca microlepis),snapper (Lutjanus griseus), seatrout or weakfish (Cynoscion sp.), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix),mullet (Mugil sp.), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonius undulatus),flounder (Paralichthys sp.), and herrings (Clupeidae) utilize SAV in that area. Whereas theAtlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (1997) recognized that all of the species managedby it are dependent upon SAV habitat to some degree, economically important species that useSAV habitats primarily for nursery and/or spawning grounds include spotted seatrout, grunts(Haemulids), snook (Centropomus sp.), bonefish (Albulu vipes), tarpon (Megalops atlanticus)and several species of snapper and grouper.

Although juvenile fish and shellfish often can use other types of habitat, the bulk of the shelter inmany estuarine systems is provided by SAV, and the loss or reduction of this habitat will lead todeclines in juvenile fish settlement (Thayer et al. 1997). In areas where the availability of SAVhabitat is limited, restoring and planting SAV habitat may be one means for increasing theavailability of spawning and nursery areas to the benefit of many fish species. This may beespecially useful in some estuarine areas where SAV habitat has been declining because ofdevelopment-related impacts to watersheds. However, it should be noted that water qualityfactors that limit the growth of SAV in a watershed may need to be addressed before initiating,or as part of, SAV restoration projects.

One issue pertinent to using SAV as a mitigation approach is the determination of how muchSAV must be provided to compensate for a particular fish loss from CWIS. Quantitativemethods for making such determinations include both empirical and modeling approaches. Theusefulness of a particular approach would likely be related to the function that SAV habitatprovides for the species of concern. Ways to evaluate the appropriateness of particularenhancement types and desired compensation levels are discussed in greater detail in Section 4.4.

Evaluation Results

2-23

2.2.4 Cost

The costs of restoring SAV habitats vary widely depending upon the methods used, the type ofvegetation being restored, and the environmental setting in which the work is conducted.

Although the ultimate cost of a project is largely driven by the area to be restored, Fonseca et al.(1998) identified a number of other factors that often lead to increased costs:

1. Inappropriate site selection,

2. Inexperience (inefficiency, poor technique),

3. High site disturbance (e.g., grazing or boat wash),

4. Water depths that require use of SCUBA divers,

5. Low visibility,

6. Soft sediments (especially when wading or walking on the site is required),

7. Rough seas,

8. Cold water planting,

9. Capital costs (purchasing equipment: e.g., boats, motors),

10. Wide profit margins of contractors,

11. Amount of site preparation required (e.g., creation of subtidal dikes),

12. Excessive monitoring frequency, and

13. Selection of overly detailed monitoring parameters (e.g., blade width, length, faunalassessment).

Fonseca et al. (1998) also conducted a detailed review of costs associated with SAV restorationand planting. They identified cost estimates ranging from $19,000 to $127,000 per acre (averagecost was $37,000 per acre) but concluded that many of the cost estimates did not accuratelyreflect some of the expenses (e.g., planning and monitoring costs) that would be incurred duringa restoration or mitigation project. The average cost was somewhat similar to the costs ofplanting salt marsh vegetation if monitoring and design costs are excluded (see Section 2.1). Theauthors included a detailed cost estimate for an example project to restore an area of SAVdamaged by propeller scarring. Their estimate, which included planning, planting, monitoring,report-writing, and a contractor profit of 10%, came to a total cost of $206,000 per acre.

Recently, the Seagrass Restoration Program at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science reportedencouraging results from using seeds to initiate growth of SAV in experimental plots

Evaluation Results

2-24

(Orth 2002a,b). It is likely that using seed instead of transplanting plants would be a cheaperalternative for establishing SAV in some cases.


2.2.5.1 Monitoring

The purpose of planting and restoring SAV is to establish viable plant communities that performhabitat functions equivalent to natural SAV, and measures of project success should be tied tothose functions. However, the evaluation of all seagrass ecosystem functions (e.g., sedimentstabilization, biomass production, nutrient cycling, and secondary production) is almost alwaysbeyond the resources of any project. Many habitat functions (e.g., animal abundance, taxonomiccomposition, complexity of the seagrass canopy, macroalgal abundance) appear to be related toarea coverage and persistence of that coverage, two parameters that can be inexpensivelymonitored (Fonseca et al. 1998). Some typical aspects to monitor in order to evaluate the successof SAV restoration efforts include:

• Survival (number and proportion of original plants that survive from year to year),

• Coverage (the size of the area containing vegetation and the percent coverage within a unitarea), and

• Number of shoots (number of individual plants or stems within a given area).

Fonseca et al. (1998) recommends that monitoring should be conducted at least quarterly for thefirst year after planting. Subsequent monitoring should be conducted biannually thereafter for atleast four additional years. If replanting is required, the initial year’s monitoring regime shouldbe reinitiated. In some cases, restoration efforts within a particular area will not be successful.All projects should have a mechanism in place to decide when a particular planting site is to beconsidered unsuccessful so that efforts can be discontinued and moved to another location.Fonseca et al. (1998) recommend that only rarely should additional replanting be allowed on asite after two previous attempts.

In addition to monitoring the success of SAV establishment, some projects also monitor use ofthe SAV by particular types of organisms. It is clear that this type of monitoring will add to theoverall cost of the project and, although variable, some cost estimates are provided by Fonsecaet al. (1998). Because the purpose of an SAV project would be to provide compensation for fishlosses due to CWIS operations, monitoring of some faunal parameters, such as fish abundance,species composition, density of larval fishes, growth rates, survival rates, or occurrence ofreproduction, may also be desirable.

2.2.5.2 Maintenance

Under ideal conditions, once it is planted, an SAV bed will become well established, will be self-sustaining, and may actually increase in size over the planted area. If this happens, little to nomaintenance will be required. However, if monitoring identifies deficiencies in growth and

Evaluation Results

2-25

establishment of planted SAV, it may be necessary to replant some areas. The monitoringprocess should first be used to help identify the potential reasons (e.g., water quality issues,herbivory or physical disturbance) that the plantings did not become established. Appropriateaction should then be taken to address problems.


Development and restoration of SAV beds have been successful in some areas (e.g., some SAVbeds have been increasing in Chesapeake Bay). As a consequence of past research and mitigationefforts, there are well-established procedures and techniques for planning, planting, andmonitoring SAV projects. In addition, new methods, such as planting with seed instead oftransplanting young plants, are being investigated and may make it easier and cheaper to developSAV habitats in the future. It is important to note that prior to initiating a SAV restorationproject, anthropogenic impacts to watersheds that led to decline in historic SAV beds may needto be addressed. Some advantages and limitations of SAV restoration and enhancement as ameans for mitigating CWIS impacts are provided in Table 2-4.

Table 2-4Advantages and Limitations of Creation and Restoration of SAV as a MitigationTool for CWIS Operations.


Well-established ecological benefits associatedwith SAV habitat; including increased survival,recruitment, and growth of some fish species.

Successful restoration likely to benefitinvertebrates and fish; may also benefit otherwildlife species (e.g., waterfowl).

Once established, SAV beds may reduceresuspension of sediments and erosion ofshorelines by reducing currents and wavestrength.

Well-established methods exist for planting andestablishing SAV habitat.

Typically only 1-2 years required to implement.

Additional planting may be required if notinitially successful.

Establishment of recovered SAV habitat maytake many years, depending on plantingsuccess and the species to be recovered.

May be difficult to establish SAV ifanthropogenic impacts to watershed (e.g.,sediment inputs, nutrient loading, runoff ofherbicides from agricultural fields) are notaddressed first.

May be necessary to control wildlife use ofSAV (e.g., grazing by waterfowl) until itbecomes well-established.

In some cases, the fish that directly benefitfrom establishing or restoring SAV may notbe the species most affected by CWISoperations. However, there may be indirectbenefits to such species.

Evaluation Results

2-26

2.2.7 Summary

SAV is an ecologically significant habitat providing food, refuge, and spawning areas for manyfish species. Because of human impacts and natural changes, SAV has declined or completelydisappeared from some areas where this habitat historically occurred. In such areas, restoring orincreasing the amount of SAV habitat may greatly enhance population levels of some fishspecies. For these reasons, enhancement and restoration of SAV habitat could be a viable meansto improve fisheries in some locations and could serve as a viable enhancement strategy tomitigate for impingement and entrainment impacts.

2.3 Creation of Artificial Habitats


Artificial habitats (including artificial reefs) are structures or materials that are placed in aquaticsystems (freshwater or marine) to enhance or create habitat for fish or other aquatic organisms.Artificial habitats for fish are currently in use in most, if not all, of the 50 states and are alsowidely used in other countries, especially in Europe and Asia. Japan is sometimes considered tobe a world leader in research related to the use of artificial habitats in marine environments(Baine 2001). While a large proportion of artificial enhancements for fish are geared towardmarine environments, in a survey of state agencies and Puerto Rico conducted by the ReservoirCommittee of the Southern Division of the American Fisheries Society (Southern Division AFSReservoir Committee 2000), 82% of the states surveyed reported the use of artificial habitatenhancements in freshwater environments. Many states have formal artificial reef programs.

Interest in development of artificial habitats and in the technologies related to enhancing aquaticecosystems is high in many areas of the world and is largely driven by organizations andindividuals involved in subsistence, commercial, and recreational fishing. In addition to theinterests of fishery users, there is also a great deal of interest in the uses of artificial habitats forfisheries management, environmental preservation, and mitigation. A great deal of research anddevelopment has been conducted on the technological aspects of artificial habitat construction,materials, and deployment. Furthermore, an extensive body of scientific literature exists on theeffects of artificial habitats on fisheries and ecological parameters (for example, see Seaman andSprague 1991, DeMartini et al. 1994, EARRN 1999). The level of knowledge and ongoingresearch related to various aspects of artificial reefs has grown to the point that some consider itto be a distinct multidisciplinary branch of fisheries science (Seaman and Sprague 1991).

The technology associated with artificial habitat design ranges from simple placement of brushpiles, to sinking surplus ships, to placement of specially designed structures composed of variousmaterials. In Texas, a program known as “Rigs to Reefs” recycles obsolete petroleum platformsinto permanent artificial reefs rather than taking them ashore as scrap. To date, 49 oil rigs havebeen donated by oil companies (Texas Parks and Wildlife 2002). The choice of materials andtypes of structures best for use as artificial habitat will depend upon the desired function of theproposed habitat, the compatibility of various materials with the environment in which it is to be

Evaluation Results

2-27

placed, the durability and stability of the materials, and the availability of the materials (GulfStates Marine Fisheries Commission 1997).


Construction of artificial habitats as a means of enhancing, restoring, or mitigating for habitatdegradation or loss is not a new idea (see Grove 1982, Barnett et al. 1991, Foster et al. 1994,Cheney et al. 1994, Carter et al. 1985a,b, Davis 1985, Ambrose 1994a). Developing artificialhabitats has the potential to address concerns regarding impingement and entrainment losses ofeggs or fish by providing refuge, foraging, spawning, or nursery habitats. Providing theseadditional habitats could result in increased survival, growth, body condition, or production oftarget fish species. In addition to providing these potential benefits to fishery resources, indirectbenefits of artificial habitat construction may include increased local biodiversity, increasedhabitat availability or suitability for organisms other than fish (e.g., plants and invertebrates),increased food for fish and wildlife, and increased recreational opportunities, such as fishing ordiving.

Survival. One of the principal goals of many artificial habitats is to provide cover for adult orjuvenile fish, with the idea that providing cover will enhance survival. Structural refuge onnatural reefs has been shown to enhance the survival of new recruits (Carr and Hixon 1995), andit is reasonable to assume that artificial structures will also enhance survival over nonstructuredhabitat in many cases. However, it is also well known that predatory fishes are often attracted toartificial structures, perhaps because the structures serve to concentrate certain prey species.Artificial structures also often serve as a focal point for anglers seeking the attracted species. Insome cases, overfishing of desirable species may occur, resulting in undesirable impacts to thosespecies (Seaman and Sprague 1991).

Fish Production and Growth. It is important to note that the deployment of artificial structuresmay not lead to overall increased production (i.e., numbers or biomass) of fish in a system as awhole. Although artificial structures commonly work well in increasing the numbers of fishwithin the vicinity of the structures, it is unclear in some cases whether these localized increasesrepresent additional numbers of fish in the system as a whole or whether the structures aresimply attracting and concentrating fish from other areas within the system. A considerableamount of scientific discussion has developed around this topic (e.g., Seaman 1997, Lindberg1997, Grossman et al. 1997, Johnson et al. 1994, Wilson et al. 2001), and it has been identifiedby reef managers as one of the most important areas of needed research (Steimle and Meier1997). The key to resolving this issue is to determine whether the production of fish within aparticular system is either recruitment-limited or habitat-limited (Grossman et al. 1997).

In a recruitment-limited system, there is more habitat available than can be occupied by thenumber of new fish being produced. Adding artificial habitat to a recruitment-limited systemwould not be expected to lead to an increase in total population size (Grossman et al. 1997).However, adding structural features (e.g., artificial reefs) in an area predominated bynonstructured habitat (e.g., sand or mud bottoms) may well lead to increases in the production of

Evaluation Results

2-28

species that are typically associated with structured habitats because it provides additional habitatin a habitat-limited system.

In habitat-limited systems, there are more young fish being produced than the available habitatcan support. Under such conditions, it is expected that total population size will increase as theamount of habitat is increased, and production may well be improved by adding artificial habitat.For such additions to be effective, the habitat requirements of the fish species being mitigated formust be adequately understood to be incorporated into the design of the artificial habitat (i.e., themeasures taken need to be focused on the target species).

It is clear that many fish species feed and grow while they are associated with constructedhabitats. For example, quantitative estimates of fish production on the Torrey Pines ArtificialReef in Southern California were made by several different methods, including mark-and-recapture, feeding observations, and gut content analyses (DeMartini et al. 1994, Johnson et al.1994). Data for 11 species indicated a production of 650 kg/ha over a seven-month growingseason. Although this should be considered a rough estimate with many uncertainties, itindicated that some fish will reside on a constructed reef for a long period of time and that thosefish will successfully feed and grow while on the reef. Moreover, fish production on theconstructed habitat was estimated to be about nine times higher per unit area than production onthe surrounding sand bottom, indicating that constructing the habitat greatly increased productionover what it would have been had the area remained a sand bottom.

Reproduction. The online Habitat Manual for Use of Artificial Structures in Lakes andReservoirs (Southern Division AFS Reservoir Committee 2000) reported that surveys conductedof state agencies found that 29% of the respondents included the development of spawninghabitat as a goal for artificial structures in lakes and reservoirs. The ability of artificial habitats tosupport fish spawning activities and the potential for this technology to mitigate entrainment offish eggs and larvae will depend upon a number of factors, including the species of concern, thequantity and nature of existing habitat in the surrounding areas, and the specific type of artificialhabitat being considered. It has been demonstrated that some fish species spawn on artificialhabitats. For example, Marsden et al. (1995) and Marsden and Chotowski (2001) found that laketrout spawned on constructed habitat (rock piles) in the Great Lakes, and Stephens et al. (1994)inferred spawning of several species on an artificial reef based upon the appearance of larval fishof species that do not produce drifting larvae.

It is reasonable to expect that many fish species that have demersal eggs (eggs deposited on thesubstrate) may also spawn on artificial habitats. Since the types of fish eggs that are likely to beentrained by CWIS operations are often pelagic in nature, artificial habitats may not provide thebest means for compensating for such losses. However, it is known that some fish species thatproduce pelagic eggs congregate around structures, including artificial reefs, during spawning. Itis possible that strategic location of appropriate artificial habitat in areas away from or down-current of intake structures could promote spawning in areas where eggs will not be as likely tobe entrained.

Different types of artificial habitats will (1) develop different types of fish communities;(2) support different life stages (i.e., larval, juvenile or adults); and (3) support various functions

Evaluation Results

2-29

(i.e., feeding, spawning, or nursery habitat). The composition of the fish community can also beaffected by the environmental setting (e.g., surrounding substrate), the age of artificial structures,and the habitat complexity of the artificial structure (Charbonnel et al. 2002, Coll 1998,Shermann et al. 2002). Thus, it is important to consider a number of variables when planning forand designing artificial habitats. If an artificial habitat is being considered for habitat mitigation,it is important to identify the ecological functions provided by the habitat being replaced, and, ifpossible, provide artificial habitat that will provide similar functions. In many cases, however, itis more feasible and, perhaps, desirable, to provide artificial habitat that will serve a differentecological function. Ultimately, resource managers must consider whether artificial habitattechnology can be used to repair or replace damaged habitat function or replenish specificelements of the overall resources of an area (Atlantic and Gulf States Marine FisheriesCommissions 1998). In addition to ecological considerations, an array of non-ecological issueswill need to be considered in planning artificial habitats. These issues include social, economic,engineering, and regulatory considerations. Additional discussion of these issues can be found inthe Artificial Reef Planning Guide developed by the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine FisheriesCommissions (1998).

If the creation of artificial habitat is to be used as a mitigation measure, it will be necessary todetermine how much habitat must be created to compensate for a particular fish loss from CWIS.Quantitative methods for making such determinations include both empirical and modelingapproaches. However, it might be necessary in some cases to base the type and amount ofhabitat to be created on professional judgment and negotiation. The usefulness of a particularapproach would likely be related to the function that the proposed habitat provides for thespecies of concern. Means for evaluating the appropriateness of particular enhancement typesand desired compensation levels are discussed in greater detail in Section 4.4.

2.3.3 Cost

Ultimately, the costs associated with the development of artificial fish habitat will depend on thetype and size of habitat to be constructed, the environmental setting for the proposed habitat, theecological goals of the project, and the materials selected for use. Construction costs fordevelopment and placement of simple artificial structures, such as rubble piles or bundles ofbrush in a small area, may be quite low; costs of engineered structures or placement of surplusships may be considerable. Some important considerations when developing costs-benefitcomparisons of potential artificial habitat designs include the size of the artificial habitat areathat will need to be developed, the costs of materials to be used, and the durability and stabilityof those materials in the environment of concern. When cost estimates of various materials arebeing developed, it is important to consider the overall cost/unit area, including preparation,deployment, and maintenance of the materials. For example, many artificial reefs have beenconstructed from surplus vessels that are often donated to the project. However, there would becosts associated with preparing these vessels before they are deployed. For example, there wouldbe costs associated with cleaning and removing hazardous materials such as petroleum-basedproducts, lead-based paint, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and asbestos. Structuresconstructed specifically for use as artificial habitat may actually be cheaper in some cases afterall expenses are taken into account.

Evaluation Results

2-30

Some specific examples of costs for constructing artificial habitats are provided below:

• In one case, it was estimated that 200 to 300 acres of artificial habitat would be required tocompensate for lost fisheries functions due to contamination (Ambrose 1994b). The cost wasestimated at approximately $29 million to construct an appropriate deep water reef designedto provide nursery habitat for fish (mixed low-relief and high-relief habitat created usingquarry rock). As an alternative, a 240-acre shallow-water rock reef with kelp forest wasestimated to cost approximately $41 million to construct Ambrose (1994b).

• The costs of planning, construction, monitoring and research for a 300-acre artificial kelpreef to mitigate for cooling water impacts from the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Stationare expected to total approximately $50 million since its inception in 1991. The estimatedbudget for independent monitoring and technical oversight of the kelp reef development bythe California Coastal Commission during FY 2002-2003 was approximately $1.6 million(CCC 2001).

• The USEPA (2001a) projected on the basis of information from 15 oyster reef restorationstudies that oyster reef restoration as a means of compensating for impingement andentrainment losses would cost approximately $6,038/hectare.

• Janvrin (2002) estimated costs for the creation of spawning, over-wintering, and juvenilehabitats needed to restore habitat loss within the upper Mississippi River system through theuse of fish cribs, spawning reefs, over-wintering structures, and so forth. The estimated costswere almost $1.8 million per mile, with annual operation and maintenance costs estimated atnearly $16,900 per mile.


2.3.4.1 Monitoring

As identified by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2002), the primary reasons forestablishing monitoring programs as part of artificial reef management are to (1) assurecompliance with the conditions defined in any authorizing permits or other applicable laws orregulations; and (2) provide an assessment of the predicted performance of reefs. Specificmonitoring strategies selected should depend on compliance requirements, ecological goals forthe habitat construction, the type of artificial structure that needs to be evaluated, and theavailability of resources (e.g., funding and personnel). Some considerations for compliance andperformance monitoring of artificial habitat projects are provided below.

Compliance Monitoring. Specific compliance monitoring requirements and the degree to whichfederal, state, or local agencies carry out compliance inspections will be determined bygoverning law, regulations, and conditions for approval of the various required permits(e.g., permits for U.S. Coast Guard [USCG], USACE, and state agencies).

Compliance monitoring may involve documentation of material stability and structural integrityof the artificial habitat. Typical methods for determining these parameters may include use ofsimple bathymetric surveying instrumentation, such as hull mounted depth recorders or more

Evaluation Results

2-31

sophisticated gear, such as side-scan sonar or magnetometers for mapping the positions ofartificial habitat materials. Compliance monitoring surveys may often require the use of visualconfirmation of habitat material obtained through observations provided by SCUBA divers,cable-controlled cameras, or remotely operated vehicles with cameras.

Performance Monitoring. Performance monitoring involves periodic evaluations to determinewhether a specific artificial habitat project is accomplishing the purposes for which it wasestablished. This type of monitoring should also be designed to detect whether the habitat ishaving unexpected negative consequences, to help identify research priorities, and to identifywhether alternative management strategies or new regulations may be needed. Ultimately,performance monitoring assesses the engineering, biological, and socioeconomic factorsessential in documenting the success or impact of a given artificial habitat project. Baseline datashould also be collected before creating artificial habitats. These data would form the basis forthe comprehensive evaluation of impacts and performance of the artificial habitat (Wildling andSayer 2002).

The long-term success of artificial habitats is largely dependent on materials remaining in placeand continuing to provide durable, safe, and effective substrate for the establishment of a bioticcommunity. Certain materials and construction methods will be better suited for applications inspecific aquatic environments (e.g., freshwater versus marine waters; offshore versus nearshoreversus estuarine), and some will be found not to meet acceptable standards for continued use.Engineering assessments provide a means to evaluate the structure and learn from the efforts ofboth past and present habitat construction activities, thereby allowing for improvements in futurehabitat development techniques.

Because most artificial habitat projects are constructed for ecological or fisheries purposes,detailed biological assessments of the positive and negative impacts should be conducted. Inmost cases, this can be done through underwater observations and collection of data duringroutine monitoring activities. Such monitoring can provide a great deal of information regardingthe biotic community that develops and can track whether the artificial habitat is successful inproducing both short-term and long-term enhancements of desired fish populations. Dependingon the goals of the project, quantifiable data may be collected regarding important ecologicalaspects, including development of vegetation and sessile invertebrate communities; interactionsbetween fish associated with structures and the biological communities in surrounding habitats;the association of target fish species with certain structures; evidence of spawning, recruitment,and survival of target species; and long-term changes in biotic community structure. Biologicalmonitoring of artificial habitats is also critical in identifying research priorities for gaining abetter understanding of how artificial habitats work and how they can be best used to meetfisheries management objectives. It may be necessary to identify and use measurements inappropriate reference areas to establish a baseline against which biological success of anartificial habitat project can be evaluated.

While artificial habitats are constructed for various reasons, the most commonly encountered useof such structures is to enhance fishing activities. Therefore, the measurement of the success of agiven project may include evaluations of the effects of the project on the fishery it was designedto enhance. As identified in Section 2.3.2, there has been a great deal of concern that many

Evaluation Results

2-32

artificial structures serve only to attract and concentrate individual fish from other areas insteadof increasing production. Monitoring of fishing activity and collection of other fisheryinformation will greatly assist habitat managers in determining potential impacts on fishpopulations and will help fisheries resource managers to make decisions regarding the need fornew regulations, changes in fishing practices, specific needs in public education, and the need foradditional data.

In some cases, a socioeconomic assessment may be desirable to evaluate the impact of artificialfishery habitat improvements on a variety of social and economic factors within a given regionof interest (e.g., state, county, municipal). Such an assessment may be considered important formeasuring the overall success of an artificial habitat project or to provide information forcost/benefit analyses. Examples of factors that may be of interest include direct and indirecteconomic benefits, quality of fishing, fishing safety, fuel consumption per trip, and changes infishing patterns or techniques.

2.3.4.2 Maintenance

Maintenance also should be considered as part of any artificial habitat project. In some cases,maintenance may be necessary to comply with permit conditions (e.g., placement of buoys,materials scattering). Additional maintenance may be needed to enhance or maintain theeffectiveness of the artificial habitat (e.g., adding or replacing materials). Some examples oftypical maintenance requirements might include:

• Maintaining buoy systems to comply with USCG permit requirements,• Periodically deploying new structures or replacing existing structures with materials more

suited to the site conditions,• Maintaining development and monitoring records for the project, and• Updating information databases to be used for analyses.


While the concept of constructing artificial habitat is relatively simple, it may be difficult toconstruct habitat that will directly target the species affected by CWIS operations. Nevertheless,several aspects of artificial habitats may make them useful for mitigating such impacts. Acomparison of various types of materials and structures for artificial habitats, includingadvantages and disadvantages, has been compiled by the Gulf States Marine FisheriesCommission (1997). Some advantages and limitations of the use of artificial habitat are providedin Table 2-5. Another limitation regarding artificial habitats is that the actual habitat productivityis difficult to predict. For example, the presence of high fish densities on an artificial reef doesnot guarantee that the reef has increased net productivity of fish or that the fish on the reef wereproduced there (Ambrose and Swarbrick 1989). In contrast, a breakwater at King Harbor inCalifornia was found to be a functioning reef producing larval reef fish (Stephens and Pondella2002).

Evaluation Results

2-33

Table 2-5Advantages and Limitations of Artificial Habitats as a Mitigation Toolfor CWIS Operations.


Considerable amount of literature is available toassist with planning, design, deployment,monitoring, and maintenance of artificial habitats.

Well-developed body of scientific informationexists about ecological effects and the types offish species attracted to some types of structures.

Monitoring techniques have been developed.

Commercial vendors and experiencedcontractors are available.

May provide recreational opportunities for anglersand divers.

Fish often attracted shortly after construction ofartificial habitat, resulting in immediate benefits.

Can often target specific life stages by alteringthe type of habitat being provided.

Better information needed to resolve issueabout production vs. attraction of various fishspecies.

May not be feasible to directly targetimpinged or entrained species, althoughindirect benefits may result.

Some fish species may be prone tooverfishing because of concentration aroundartificial habitats and the ease with whichanglers can locate the area.

Although initial colonization is often rapid, itmay take 10-20 years for a climax communityto become established.

Monitoring costs may be high until it can bedemonstrated that natural communities havedeveloped and targeted ecological functionhas been restored or reached.

Some elements may need to be periodicallyreplaced.

2.3.6 Summary

The construction of artificial habitat may be a viable means of compensating for fish resourcesaffected by CWIS operations. Compared with major upgrades to CWIS structures, artificialhabitat construction would also be cost-effective, depending upon the location for the project,how large an area would need to be developed, and the type of habitat being considered.Although reasonable predictions can be made in some cases about the types and life stages offish that are likely to be supported by a particular project, it may be difficult to predict thenumbers of those species or life stages that are likely to be supported or produced. However, thelarge amount of scientific literature available about the use of artificial habitats and ongoingresearch in this area will likely continue to improve the ability to develop artificial habitats tosuccessfully accomplish specific mitigation goals.

2.4 Restoration of Fish Passage

The construction of hydroelectric and irrigation dams, flood control structures, and culverts hasgreatly affected the ability of migratory fishes to access riverine habitats. Dams and flood controlstructures (dikes and levees) are physical barriers that directly block fish movements upstream,

Evaluation Results

2-34

downstream, or into off-channel habitats. Flood control structures can dramatically reduce boththe access to, and availability of, off-channel spawning, nursery, and foraging habitats to riverinefishes throughout North America (Funk and Robinson 1974, Heinz Center 2002). Culverts mayact as barriers to fish movement by either creating impassable high-velocity chutes within theculvert proper, or by cutting away the stream bed immediately below the culvert and creating awaterfall (Bates 1999). Blockage of migration routes can severely impede successfulreproduction and lead to reduced populations or, in a worst case scenario, complete loss of aspecies from a particular aquatic ecosystem.

Diadromous is a general category describing fish that spend portions of their life cycles partiallyin fresh water and partially in salt water. This general category includes both anadromous andcatadromous fish. Anadromous fish, such as Atlantic salmon, blueback herring, alewife, andstriped bass, live as adults in marine habitats and migrate into freshwater to spawn. Catadromousfish, such as the American eel, live as adults in freshwater or estuarine habitats and migrate tosaltwater to spawn. The construction of dams for hydropower production, flood control, andwater supply have adversely affected the life cycles of many such species by limiting theirmovements between fresh and salt water spawning and nursery habitats (USACE 2002a).

Many freshwater species may also exhibit reproductive migrations between freshwater habitatsof a particular watershed as part of their life cycles. For example, the federally endangeredColorado pike minnow is known to migrate 100 miles or more within the Colorado River Basinin western North America to reach specific spawning areas (Muth et al. 2000). Other migratoryspecies, such as the federally endangered razorback sucker, require access by larvae driftingdownstream in the riverine main channel to seasonally available off-channel nursery areas, suchas flooded bottomlands and backwaters (Muth et al. 2000).

The restoration of fish passage, whether by providing upstream and downstream passage aroundobstacles or by removal of the obstacles can have a variety of ecological and environmentalbenefits (American Rivers et al. 1999, Chesapeake Bay Program 2002a, Heinz Center 2002).Benefits of providing upstream passage around obstacles are primarily associated with restoredaccess by fish to historically utilized habitats (including spawning grounds and nursery areas).Benefits from downstream passage restoration are associated with the movement of larval andjuvenile fish necessary to complete species-specific life cycles. Benefits associated with theremoval of fish passage obstacles include not only those benefits associated with upstream anddownstream fish passage, but also may include restoration of natural stream flows, temporaltemperature and oxygen patterns, sediment and nutrient transport, and fish and wildlife habitat(American Rivers et al. 1999).

2.4.1 State of the Science�Fish Passage Techniques

The restoration of fish passage has been widely used as an approach for mitigating the impacts ofmigratory obstacles on the distribution, abundance, and survival of freshwater and marine fishes.Restoration activities have addressed the restoration of both upstream and downstreammovements of fishes, as well as movements between main channel and off-channel habitats(Muth et al. 2000).

Evaluation Results

2-35

The most widely used techniques for restoring fishpassage can be considered as either active or passivein nature, both of which require careful ecologicalevaluation and engineering design. Active techniquesinvolve the capture and transport of fishes aroundinstream obstacles. Examples include fish lifts, fishlocks, and transportation (Sale et al. 1991, Francfortet al. 1994, OTA 1995, Odeh 1999). In contrast,passive techniques do not involve the active captureof fishes. Rather, the fish themselves are responsiblefor movement around the obstacle. Examples ofpassive techniques include fishways (e.g., fishladders), dam removal, and bypasses (Sale et al. 1991,Francfort et al. 1994, Amaral et al. 1998, Odeh 1999,USACE 2002c). The following section briefly describe the major types of fish passagetechniques in use today.

2.4.1.1 Upstream Passage Techniques

Upstream passage techniques focus on restoring the upstream migration of migratory speciespast riverine obstructions such as dams and roadway crossings. These techniques includefishways, fish lifts, fish locks, dam removal or breaching, and transportation.

Fishways. Fishways provide fish an avenue past stream obstructions that would otherwiseimpede upstream migrations (Sale et al. 1991, Francfort et al. 1994, OTA 1995, Odeh 1999).Fishways typically consist of some sort of engineered flume or channel with internal baffles,stepped pools, or other mechanisms that are intended to slow water velocity to a level moreeasily traversed by fish (Flosi et al. 1998). All are intended to provide optimal water velocity andwater depth to enable migratory fish to pass the obstruction. A variety of fishways are commonlyused to restore upstream migration.

Denil Fishway. This type of fishway, conceptually designed in the early 1900s (Odeh 1999), isamong the most common fishway design currently in use. It consists of a series of slopedchannels or chutes with baffles inserted within the channels at an angle directed into the directionof water flow. The baffles produce areas of slower water flow that serve as resting places formigrating fish. Operable slopes range up to about 25% (OTA 1995). Flow through the Denilfishway is very turbulent. As a consequence, fish must swim constantly in the chute, and restingpools for fish must be included at certain intervals between individual channels or chutes so thatfish can traverse the entire passage (OTA 1995, Kamula 2001).

Steeppass Fishway. A The steeppass fishway is similar to a Denil, except that it usually has onlya single straight channel or chute with baffles along the sides and bottom that create turbulenceto lower water velocity (Kamula 2001). Easy to design and install, it is relatively inexpensive(Maloney et al. 2000) and often prefabricated (OTA 1995). This type of fishway is typically usedfor relatively small obstructions and does not require resting pools. The Steeppass fishway is

Text Box 2-1. Common FishPassage Techniques

• Fishways

• Fish locks and lifts

• Transportation

• Dam removal or breaching

• Physical barriers and bypass systems

Evaluation Results

2-36

more efficient at controlling water velocity than the Denil fishway and can be used in steeperslopes (up to about 33%) [OTA 1995]). The steeppass fishway is often used in remote locationsbecause it can be prefabricated in sections, is easily transported, and can be easily installed onlocation (Odeh 1999).

Pool-and-Weir Fishway. The pool-and-weir fishway consists of a series of individual poolsarranged in a step-like formation ascending the obstruction. The pools are separated by walls orweirs that may or may not include openings or short chutes (Kamula 2001). Fish move from poolto pool by jumping or swimming over the weirs or by passing through the openings or chutes.Fish rest in the pools formed by the walls (Maloney et al. 2000).

Vertical Slot Fishway. The vertical slot fishway is similar to the pool-and-weir fishway becauseit also consists of a series of pools. However, the vertical slot fishway is designed with twobaffles placed at the entrance of each pool to form a narrow vertical slot the height of the bafflefor fish to pass through (rather than having to jump from one level to the next). These slots serveto concentrate water flow leaving the pool through the slots, while providing calm water withineach pool to allow fish to rest (Odeh 1999). Fish may pass from pool to pool at whatever slotdepth they select. Flow patterns within the pools and water velocities through the slots arelargely independent on the water depth in the fishway (Kamula 2001).

Culvert Fishway. The culvert fishway is used to provide access for fish past obstructionsassociated with roadway stream crossings (Odeh 1999). This fishway is basically a pipe culvertwith internal baffles of various shapes and sizes that reduce water velocities to passable levels(Clay 1995, Bates 1999, Odeh 1999). The design of the culvert fishway creates hydraulicconditions through the culvert that accommodate the swimming ability and timing of targetspecies and sizes of fish. Culvert fishways follow three different designs (NMFS 2001). Activechannel designs size a culvert sufficiently large and embedded deep enough into the channel toallow for the natural movement of bedload and formation of a stable bed inside the culvert.Stream simulation designs are intended to mimic natural stream processes within the culvert,with fish passage, sediment transport, and flood and debris conveyance intended to function asthey would in a natural channel. Hydraulic designs match the hydraulic performance of a culvertwith the swimming abilities of a target species and age class of fish.

Eel Fishway. Eels are catadromous fish whose juveniles (elvers) migrate upstream from theocean to their freshwater habitats. Because of their snake-like shape, elvers can slither along astream bottom under very low water depth and flow conditions. To take advantage of thislocomotor style, eel fishways have bristles installed along the bottom. Only a small amount ofwater is needed at the upstream end of the fishway to allow elvers to slither between the bristlesup to the top of the fishway (Odeh 1999).

Fish Locks. Fish locks move fish over obstacles in the same manner they are used to move shipspast dams. Fish enter the lock on the tailwater side of the dam, a downstream gate closes and anupstream gate opens allowing water to enter the lock. Once the water level reaches the forebayelevation the fish exit the lock above the dam (Clay 1995; Odeh 1999). An attractant flow maybe needed to attract fish into the lock.

Evaluation Results

2-37

Fish Lifts. Fish lifts (or elevators) are typically used only at very large obstructions, such as highhead dams (Odeh 1999). An attractant flow of water is provided to guide fish into a large hopperat the base of the dam. The hopper then raises the fish to the top of the dam. The fish can theneither be released into the river or transferred into holding tanks for transport to another tributaryfor stocking.

Dam Removal or Breaching. Dam removal has received considerable attention in recent years asan approach to restore fish passage (both upstream and downstream) (Heinz Center 2002). Asimplied by the name, dam removal involves the complete removal of the dam to restore naturalflow conditions (ASCE 1997, Odeh 1999, American Rivers et al. 1999, Baish et al. 2002). Low-level dams may be breached or notched to allow for fish passage. Breaching may also include theuse of weirs below the breach or notch to reduce water velocities to levels that allow fish tomove through the passage over a wide range of river flows (Odeh et al. 1995, Chesapeake BayProgram 2002b).

Transportation. Transportation (sometimes referred to as ‘trap and truck’) is a fish passagetechnique that uses fish lifts to capture migratory fish in hoppers. Rather than transporting thefish over the top of the obstruction and releasing them into the river, the captured fish are placedinto holding tanks and transported by truck, barge, or other method farther upstream for stocking(Odeh 1999). In the case of long reservoirs behind the migratory obstacles, this technique can beused to place migrating adults closer to the spawning grounds, thereby reducing migration delay(OTA 1995).

2.4.1.2 Downstream Passage Techniques

Just as upstream passage allows fish to complete portions of their life cycles, there is a similarneed to have adequate downstream passage. Downstream passage techniques focus in large parton directing downstream migrating fish toward some sort of conveyance mechanism thattransports them a short distance to a trap-and-truck facility or to a plunge pool in the dam tailrace(Amaral et al. 1998).

Transportation. As with upstream fish passage, transportation can be used to providedownstream passage of fish around dams. This fish passage technique uses physical diversions orbypass systems to direct fish into a collection area. The fish are then captured and loaded ontotrucks or barges for transportation to release sites downstream of the dam (OTA 1995, Amaralet al. 1998, Giorgi et al. 2002, USACE 2002c).

Physical Barrier and Bypass Systems. Physical barrier and bypass systems represent structuraldevices (such as traveling screens and bar racks) that physically exclude fish from entrainment atturbines and water intake structures and direct fish into a bypass system (OTA 1995, Amaralet al. 1998, 1999, Hanson 1999, Larinier and Travade 1999, Odeh 1999, Peven and Mosey1999). The bypass system may transport the fish into a canal that rejoins the main channel belowthe obstruction, release the fish into the main channel via an outfall pipe or sluiceway, ortransport the fish to a holding facility for later transportation (OTA 1995, Amaral et al. 1998,Odeh 1999, USACE 2002b).

Evaluation Results

2-38

2.4.2 Current Status

Fish passage mitigation is widely used to enhance fish migration and restore fish populationsimpacted by anthropogenic activities. There are about 76,000 dams greater than 6 feet high in theUnited States that act as barriers to fish passage (Heinz Center 2002). Fish passage restoration iscurrently being conducted in virtually every state by a variety of local, state, and federalagencies, as well as by the private sector and multiagency organizations (Sale et al. 1991,American Rivers et al. 1999, Heinz Center 2002). Numerous federal agencies, including theU.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), Reclamation, USACE, and USFWS, as well as privateorganizations such as EPRI, have all supported research on fish passage technologies andcontinue to do so (OTA 1995, Amaral et al. 1998, USACE 2002d).

The USFWS has established a National Fish Passage Program that works with state, local, andprivate sector partners to remove barriers and build structures to improve fish passage (USFWS2002a). The program, which provides funding and technical assistance, focuses primarily on thereconnection of aquatic habitats for native fish and other species, especially species that areendangered, threatened, or migratory. Fish passage restoration projects completed through theNational Fish Passage Program have provided fish access to more than 2,300 miles of riverhabitat and 24,000 acres of wetlands, and have been used to assist in the recovery of50 endangered and threatened species (USFWS 2002e). Examples of projects under this programinclude culvert renovations to restore river access for salmonids in Washington (USFWS 2002f)and for the threatened leopard darter in Oklahoma (USFWS 2002g); dam removals in Maine foranadromous species including the American shad (USFWS 2002h) and in North Carolina foranadromous fish including Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon (USFWS 2002i); and dike removal torestore tidal flows and fish access to former salt marsh habitat (USFWS 2002j).

Fishways are being used to support recovery of endangered fishes in the Colorado River Basin.For example, a 350-foot fishway has been built at the Redlands Diversion Dam on the GunnisonRiver in Colorado to provide endangered (Colorado pikeminnow) and native fish access to57 miles of historical habitat that have been inaccessible for nearly a century (USFWS 2002e).Since becoming operational in 1996, 51 Colorado pikeminnows and more than 35,000 othernative fish have used the passageway. A fishway was constructed at the Grand Valley IrrigationCompany Diversion Dam on the Colorado River in 1998 (USFWS 2002k), and together withplanned upstream and downstream fish passage structures at the Grand Valley Project DiversionDam and the planned removal of the 10-foot-high Price-Stubb Dam, will restore fish passage to55 miles of historically occupied habitat for the Colorado pikeminnow and other endangered andnative fishes (USDOI 2002, USFWS 2002k).

Fish passage techniques are used at electric generating facilities throughout the United States(Sale et al. 1991, Francfort et al. 1994, OTA 1995, Whitney et al. 1997, Knotek et al. 1997,Amaral et al. 1998, NMFS 2000). For example, 173 of the hydroelectric facilities licensed by theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in 1994 had some form of upstream fishpassage mitigation in place, while 237 had downstream mitigation measures (Francfort et al.1994). At these facilities, fishways accounted for 65% of all upstream fish passage mitigation,while physical barriers (screens and bar racks) (68%) and bypasses (27%) represented the mostcommon measures for downstream passage mitigation. The Salem Nuclear Generating Station,

Evaluation Results

2-39

which withdraws water from the Delaware Estuary, has constructed and operates eight fishladders under its Estuary Enhancement Program and is required by its New Jersey PDES permitto construct an additional two fish ladders to support upstream spawning migrations of riverherring (PSE&G 1999, PSEG 2003, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 2002,undated).

Transportation has been used to move both upstream migrating adults and downstream migratingjuvenile salmon in the Snake River, Columbia River, and other salmonid rivers in the westernUnited States (OTA 1995, NMFS 2000, USACE 2002c). Transportation has also been used on asmall scale for blueback herring and alewife in the Chesapeake Bay (Chesapeake Bay Program1999).

As part of a mosquito abatement program for the Indian River Lagoon in east-central Florida,dikes were used to impound wetlands along the lagoon (Poulakis et al. 2002); these dikesprevented the movement of fishes between the wetlands and the lagoon. Culverts are now beingused to restore fish access to wetlands isolated by the dikes. Poulakis et al. (2002) evaluated fishuse in a wetland that had been isolated for more than 39 years. After four fish passage culvertswere installed, there was an increase from 9 to 40 species within 15 weeks after restoration offish access.

Fish passage techniques are one of the many tools used by major river and estuary restorationprograms throughout the United States. The Chesapeake Bay Program has been employing avariety of fish passage approaches throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed (Chesapeake BayProgram 2002a). To date, more than 1,000 miles of dammed tributary habitat in the bay havebeen reopened to migratory fish. Five types of fish passage techniques are used in theChesapeake Bay watershed, Denil, steeppass, vertical slot, pool-and-weir, and fish lifts. Someobstructions are removed, notched, or breached.

The State of Pennsylvania removed more than 25 dams statewide between 1995 and 1999,restoring access to hundreds of miles of river habitat (PFBC undated). The ConnecticutDepartment of Environmental Protection Fisheries Division is actively involved in the protectionand enhancement of anadromous fish runs in the state. Division staff construct and operatefishways at state-owned dams and provide technical assistance for fishway construction atprivately owned dams (CDEP 2002).

The Narragansett Bay Estuary Program is another example of a large restoration program thatincludes restoring anadromous fish populations. The program has developed a four-phasefisheries restoration plan for the Blackstone River in Rhode Island. The program includes therestoration of fish passage using Denil fish ladders to provide upstream passage over the firstfour dams of the lower Blackstone River (USEPA 2002b).

In the Susquehanna River, fish passage facilities installed since the mid-1990s at threehydropower facilities have made over 450 miles of the Susquehanna River mainstem and itstributaries accessible to migratory fishes. The fish passage facility at the Conowingo Dam on theSusquehanna River, in operation since 1991, consists of two fish lifts that trap migrating fish.The facilities are capable of handling 1.5 million American shad and 10 million herring. Between

Evaluation Results

2-40

Text Box 2-2. Case Study�Little Falls Dam Fishway Project

The Little Falls Dam, built in 1959 on the Potomac River, prevented anadromous fish from moving upstreamin spring to spawn, blocking access to 10 miles of fish spawning and nursery habitat. Although the damincluded a vertical slot fishway when it was constructed, this fishway was ineffective because the design hadplaced the entrance too far downstream from the dam to attract migrating fish, and its maintenance needswere too high because of large amounts of debris carried by the river. Operation of the fishway ceased in1964. An intergovernmental task group was established in 1992 to plan and obtain funding for a new fishwayat the dam. The new fishway design developed for the dam uses three “W”-shaped labyrinth weirs within andbelow a 36-foot-wide, 4-foot-deep notch in the dam. The weirs reduce water velocity to levels that allow fishto use the fishway. The fishway was centered at an area where migratory fish congregated below the dam(Chesapeake Bay Program 2002b).

1985 and 1998, more than 350,000 adult shad were transported over the dam, and annual returnof shad has increased from fewer than 2,000 to more than 100,000 fish (MDNR 1999, Smith andBleistine 2002, PFBC undated). More than 200,000 American shad were lifted at the two lifts atConowingo Dam in 2001 (PFBC 2001).

Fish passage restoration and enhancement represents a major component of the management ofhydropower generation in the Columbia River Basin (USACE 2002a). The USACE has adultfishways and juvenile fish bypass systems in place at its eight lower Columbia and Snake Riverdams (USACE 2002b,e). The Columbia River Fish Mitigation Project was initiated to find waysto improve these systems. Since the project was begun in 1988, many changes, such asimprovements to attraction flows for the adult fish ladders and extended-length guidance screensfor juvenile bypass systems, have been made, and many more are being studied andimplemented. The USACE Anadromous Fish Evaluation Program, formerly known as the FishPassage Development and Evaluation Program, consists of a set of Corps-funded evaluation andmonitoring studies designed to provide better biological information and insights related to fishpassage and survival at hydropower dams (USACE 2002d). These studies include such topics aseffects of juvenile fish transportation, evaluation of fish guidance devices and surface collection,effects of gas supersaturation on fish, and adult fish passage at the dams.


Fish passage techniques may provide direct and/or indirect mitigation of fish losses fromimpingement and entrainment at CWISs. Depending on the species being impacted by theoperation of a CWIS, fish passage approaches can be used to restore access of the affectedspecies to currently unavailable (but historically accessible) spawning and nursery habitats. Byproviding fish passage past the obstacles, access to additional habitats is increased, and CWISoperational impacts could be offset by increased production of the target species in thepreviously inaccessible habitats. To directly address species-specific impingement andentrainment impacts, the underlying mitigation assumption is that the species impacted by CWISoperations are also those for which migrations to spawning or nursery habitats have beenblocked.

Evaluation Results

2-41

The restoration of fish passage may also result in environmental benefits for nontarget fishes byproviding a similar increase in access to previously inaccessible habitats. For example, thefishway at the Redlands Diversion on the Gunnison River was designed to provide passagearound the dam to historic habitat for the endangered Colorado pikeminnow. While the targetspecies has been shown to successfully use the fishway, an additional 35,000 other native fishhave also used the fishway since its opening in 1996 to gain access to previously unavailablehabitat (USFWS 2002k).

The applicability of fish passage restoration to mitigate operational CWIS impacts will alsodepend, in part, on the spatial relationship between the existing CWIS of concern and thelocation of existing impediments to fish passage. Opportunities to restore fish passage may notexist within the vicinity of the CWIS, or even within the same watershed. In these instances,environmental benefits of fish passage restoration would be incurred by fish populations otherthan those directly affected by impingement or entrainment at the CWIS. The life history of thespecies needs to be considered. Natal fidelity could restrict the applicability of fish ladders to thesame watershed. If no natal fidelity occurs, then the fish passageway can be located anywherewithin the distribution of the species.

2.4.4 Design, Construction, and Operational Considerations

Fish passage technologies can be very effective in restoring fish passage. Failure to effectivelysupport fish passage may be due to one or more of a variety of factors, such as:

1. Lack of attraction flow,

2. Poorly designed entranceways and exits,

3. Insufficient capacity to move fish,

4. Unsuitable hydraulic conditions within a fishway or bypass system,

5. Improper operation,

6. Handling and transportation stress, or

7. Inadequate maintenance.

Design. Regardless of the technique employed, restoration of fish passage requires careful designand construction. For example, the installation of a prefabricated steeppass fishway wouldrequire a much lower level engineering design and construction than would be necessary for thecomplete or partial removal of an existing dam or for the construction of a fish lift at a large dam.Similarly, most fishways will require relatively minimal modification of the migration obstacle(e.g., a dam), while the addition of fish lifts or locks likely will require extensive structuralmodification for construction of the lift or lock facilities. Numerous federal and state agencieshave developed very specific guidance for designing and implementing fish passage technologies(see Appendix A).

Evaluation Results

2-42

The basic design requirements of many fish passage techniques are well understood (OTA 1995,Clay 1995), and some techniques (such as pool-and-weir and Denil fishways) have been in uselong enough that the design specifications are almost standard and lend themselves toprefabrication. Similarly, the responses of fishes to fish passageways have been long studied(e.g., Jones et al. 1974, Slatick 1975, Slatick and Basham 1985, Blackett 1987, Peake et al. 1997,Laine et al. 1998; Bunt et al. 1999). However, fish- and site-specific information is critical todeveloping successful fish passage systems. Design and siting of a fish passageway requiresinformation on the following biological and physical parameters (Flosi et al.1998):

• Life history parameters of the fish species of interest, including information on the timingand magnitude of fish movements, body size, and swimming ability,

• Probable access routes to the obstacle, including location of areas where fish are known orexpected to congregate below the obstruction,

• The extent of known or potential spawning and nursery habitat and potential level of fishproduction from both above and below the obstruction,

• The type and quantity of anticipated debris that could be transported into the fishway bywater currents,

• The hydrograph of the water body of interest, including magnitude, extent, and likelihood ofextreme minimum and maximum flows, and

• Locations of other barriers (especially upstream) that could be affecting fish movements.

Mallen-Cooper (1999) cited these same factors when identifying four steps important fordeveloping fishways for nonsalmonid fishes in Australia: (1) identifying the species and lifestages (and sizes that are migrating); (2) testing these fish in an experimental fishway;(3) designing and building the fishway; and (4) quantitatively assessing the fishways usingrelevant performance criteria. General design considerations are summarized in Table 2-6.

Careful consideration must be given to the entrance to a fishway or to a fish lift or lock; theentrance must be designed to not only attract fish but to also facilitate their movement into thefish passage (Bunt 2001). Depending on the width and depth of the water body, multipleentranceways may be necessary. Similar considerations of water depth, flow, and hydraulicsmust be made in the design of fishways and bypass systems, as well as during the design offishway and bypass fish exits (OTA 1995, Clay 1995, Bates 1999, Larinier and Travade 1999,Pevan and Mosey 1999, NMFS 2001). The slope and length of the fishway must be carefullycalculated and must take into account the swimming ability of the target fish species(Haro et al. 1999a). The angle and velocity of the attractant flow leaving the entrance at the baseof the fishway also play critical roles in assisting fish to find and enter the fishway. The size ofthe target fish must also be considered (e.g., they must be able to pass through the slots in avertical slot fishway).

The success of fish passage restoration activities may be enhanced when done in conjunctionwith fish stocking programs. For example, two fish ladders were opened in 1994 on the LehighRiver to open up the lower 23 miles of the river to migratory fish (Hendricks et al. 2002). Damsconstructed in the 1820s had blocked runs of anadromous American shad to this portion of the

Evaluation Results

2-43

Table 2-6Design Considerations for Implementing Fish Passage Technologies.

Fish PassageRestoration Technique Design Considerations

Fishways Life history (including timing of the migration), behavior, andswimming ability of target species

Fish size and slot width

Hydrologic conditions above and below the migration obstacle

Fish entrance and exit location and type

Hydraulic conditions within the fishway

Resting pool volume, depth, and location

Head differential between pools

Fishway slope

Minimum flow requirements for fish passage

Need for attraction flows

Potential for debris blockage problems

Fish exclusion needs for control of unwanted species

Fish lifts and locks Life history, behavior, and size of target species

Location of the fish entrance and exit

Auxiliary water requirements

Need for attraction flows

Lock water inflow rate

Fish exclusion needs (e.g., for control of unwanted species)

Dam removal or breaching Downstream sediment transport

Potential for contaminated sediments

Dam debris disposal

Fish exclusion needs (e.g., for control of unwanted species)

Transportation Fish holding and handling facility requirements

Transportation equipment needs (truck, barge, etc.)

Holding and loading criteria, such as maximum holding times andloading densities

Physical barriers and guidancedevices

Flow approach

Protection and guidance devices

Conveyance mechanism

Debris blockage

Tailrace plunge pool location and depth

Bypass entrance flow hydraulics

Sources: OTA (1995), Clay (1995), Flosi et al. (1998), Bunt et al. (1999), Odeh (1999), Kamula (2001).

Evaluation Results

2-44

river. Hatchery-reared American shad larvae had been stocked in the river since 1985. Hatchery-origin individuals were found to comprise 73-98% of adult American shad collected upriver ofthe first dam (Hendricks et al. 2002).

Construction. Construction requirements will be site-specific; they will be strongly dependent onthe fish passage technique selected, location, surrounding topography of the proposed passagedevelopment, hydrologic conditions at the passage site, and access to the site. Many of thesefactors are the same as those for any type of construction project.

Among the various fishway types, steeppass and culvert fishways will have the simplestconstruction demands and requirements. On the other hand, the multilevel Denil and pool-and-weir fishways may require considerable construction activity, such as excavating facilityfoundations and stabilizing bank conditions. Construction of fishway entrances would requireconstruction within the river channel proper, further increasing construction complexity.Installation of fish lifts or locks at dams would require extensive construction activity, as woulddam removal or breaching.

Construction of a fishway may require a variety of environmental permits. The USACE regulatesactivities in “navigable waters” of the United States, thus a permit from the USACE may benecessary for construction of a fishway. Many states also regulate activities in wetlands, streams,rivers, and dams and may require permits for fishway construction and operation. For example, afishway project in Connecticut may require a Dam Safety Permit, a Water Diversion Permit, aStream Channel Encroachment Line Permit, and a Structure and Dredging Permit or TidalWetlands Permit (Maloney et al. 2000). Local government agencies, such as local conservationcommissions, may also have permit requirements that could affect fishway implementation.

Operation. Most fish passage approaches, once implemented, require continued maintenance foroptimal operation and use by the target fishes. The extent of maintenance and repair needs willdepend on the type of fishway, construction materials, and operational complexity. For example,pool-and-weir fishways require regular adjustments of upstream water controls to provideoptimum water depth and velocity for fish passage (Flosi et al. 1998). Denil fishways readilycapture waterborne debris such as leaves and branches and may require daily maintenance duringfish migration season to prevent blockage of the fishway. Concrete fishways may not requiremuch repair for 25 to 50 years (Maloney et al. 2000), after which substantial repair may benecessary. Aluminum passageways may be more durable, while wooden fishway components(such as baffles) may require repair every 10 years or less. While few operations activities maybe necessary following dam removal to restore fish passage, the mechanical components of fishlifts and locks may require regular planned maintenance as well as replacement of worn partsand mechanisms.

2.4.5 Monitoring

The design of any monitoring program will depend on the stated goals of the activity of interest,the success criteria developed for the activity, and the data required to show success criteriaattainment (Jones 1986, Hellawell 1991, Elzinga et al. 1998).

Evaluation Results

2-45

While currently no standardized protocols exist for conducting fish passage evaluations, anumber of approaches are used to evaluate fish passage success. These approaches includeupstream and downstream sampling (Oldani and Baigun 2002), mark-recapture surveys (Amaralet al. 1998, Bunt et al. 1999), hydro-acoustic methods (Iverson et al. 1999, Haro et al. 1999b,Ploskey and Carlson 1999, Steig and Adeniyi 1999, Oldani and Baigun 2002), radio-tagging(Bunt et al. 1999, Rivinoja et al. 2001, USACE 2002d), and passive integrated transponder (PIT)tags (USACE 2002d).

The S.O. Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center (http://www.lsc.usgs.gov/cafl/lsc-afl.htm)(which performs basic and applied research on fish migration and passage behavior and on theevaluation of passages to enhance upstream and downstream movement of anadromous andmigratory species) is currently developing a generic manual for fish passage evaluation that willdescribe practical hydraulic and biological methods for fish passage evaluation. TheBioengineering Section of the American Fisheries Society has developed guidelines for thedevelopment, evaluation, and application of technologies that will facilitate fish passage and/orprotection through the development of sound scientific evidence (AFS 2000).

The evaluation of fish passage success has received mixed attention. Sale et al. (1991) evaluatedenvironmental mitigation at hydropower facilities throughout the United States. Among the30 facilities providing responses, 57% had no monitoring in place to measure performance oftheir upstream passage mitigation. Those facilities with monitoring programs generally evaluatedsuccess on the basis of passage rates (such as fishway counts). Among 66 hydropower facilitieswith downstream passage facilities, Sale et al. (1991) found 79% had some type of performancemonitoring. Of the 14 facilities with downstream passage monitoring, fish passage and fishmortality were most commonly evaluated.

Francfort et al. (1994) also evaluated fish passage mitigations at hydroelectric facilities andfound that when present, monitoring measured mitigation benefits largely in terms of numbers ofindividual fish moved around the hydroelectric facilities, with little evaluation of benefits to fishpopulations as a whole. A survey of nonfederal hydropower facilities that included upstream ordownstream fish passage mitigation found that performance monitoring and quantifiableperformance criteria are typically lacking (Cada and Sale 1993).

Measurement of fish passage use (total numbers passed and passage rates) was the primarymonitoring approach used by various jurisdictional agencies (e.g., states) to evaluate fish passageeffectiveness in watersheds encompassed by the Chesapeake Bay Program (Chesapeake BayProgram 1999). Other monitoring approaches included surveys of species composition andabundance in upstream and downstream habitats and monitoring for out-migration of larvae andjuveniles (Amaral et al. 1998).

Factors such as passage efficiency and rate, time of passage, survival rates, and other increases ordecreases in populations have been suggested as more appropriate measures for evaluatingmitigation success (Francfort et al. 1994). Monitoring of outgoing migrations can provide adirect measure of natural reproductive success in reopened habitats above the obstruction, whiletracking numbers of returning adults can provide insight into overall population response (Giorgiet al. 2002). For example, monitoring of juvenile fish may be conducted to confirm spawning

Evaluation Results

2-46

success of target species, to confirm survival of stocked juveniles, and to determine relativecontributions of stocked and naturally spawned juveniles (Chesapeake Bay Program 1999).Success criteria should focus on an acceptable level of use of the fish passage technique by thetarget species (e.g., American shad at the Conowingo Dam) and also on a desired populationlevel response, such as increases in reproduction and abundance, or in the establishment of adesired fish community.

2.4.6 Cost

Costs for restoration of fish passage include those associated with construction (includingdemolition activities in the case of dam removal or breaching), operation, and monitoring.Additional costs may also be incurred for design and environmental evaluation studies (Sale etal. 1991, Francfort et al. 1994). Construction, operation, and monitoring costs for fish passagewill be directly related to a variety of factors, including:

• The nature of the specific passage technique selected, including its operational requirements,

• The environmental setting of the obstacle addressed by the passage approach,

• Access and ownership issues related to the obstacle (e.g., private dam),

• The target species, and

• The success criteria and monitoring objectives.

Fishway construction costs are proportional to the height of the barrier, with costs increasingwith increasing obstacle height. Steeppass fishways may cost $10,000 for every vertical foot,while Denil fishways cost about $20,000 for every vertical foot up to a height of 6 feet and$25,000 to $30,000 per vertical foot above 6 feet (Maloney et al. 2000). Construction cost of anine-step steeppass fishway at a 26-foot-high dam was reported at $176,000 (in 1993 dollars),while construction costs for two 73-level pool-and-weir fishways at a 185-foot-high dam wasestimated at $40 million (Francfort et al. 1994). Costs for a culvert bypass, which may have littleor no annual operational requirements, would be minor compared with that for the constructionand operation of a fish lift at a large dam. Janvrin (2002) reported that it would cost $4.5 millionand $40 million to implement fish passage at Lock and Dams 3 and 19, respectively, on theMississippi River; with annual maintenance costs of $5,000 for each dam.

Long-term costs will be associated with maintenance of locks, fences, gates, signs, and otherfacility-specific infrastructure, as well as with monitoring. Costs can be expected to be greater atremote locations than at sites with easy access for construction, operations, and monitoring.Higher costs can also be expected at locations with more physically complex or challenginghydrologic conditions. For example, costs can expected to be greater for constructing a fishwayentrance in deep, fast-flowing waters than in more shallow and lower-velocity habitats. A smallsteeppass fishway at a small dam (6-foot height) adjacent to a paved roadway may be expected tobe far less costly to install than would an eight-level Denil fishway at a 25-foot dam located inrugged terrain.

Evaluation Results

2-47

Sale et al. (1991) surveyed environmental mitigation projects associated with hydropowerfacilities in the United States and reported costs for construction, planning studies, operation andmaintenance, and annual reporting to be directly related to hydropower generation capacity. Costranges, by category (capital, O&M, studies, and annual reporting), for upstream and downstreammitigations reported by Sale et al. (1991) are presented in Table 2-7.

Francfort et al. (1994) conducted a similar survey of hydropower facilities and also notedpositive relationships between costs and generating capacity; cost ranges are presented inTable 2-8. Most of the upstream mitigation projects included in Table 2-8 employed fishways ofone form or another. Reported costs for upstream transportation (for only a single facility)included $68,000 for capital costs, $24,000 for annual O&M activities, and $2,500 for annualreporting (Francfort et al. 1994). For two facilities employing fish lifts, capital costs were$1.3 million and $2.0 million, O&M costs were $6,000 and $24,000, and annual reporting costswere $12,000 and $14,000.

Downstream passage approaches reported by Francfort et al. (1994) included various types ofbarriers and bypass systems. Reported costs for these bypass systems ranged from $60,000 to$472,000 for construction, $12,000 to $112,000 for design and environmental studies, $3,000 to$5,000 for O&M, and $1,000 for reporting. Physical barrier costs ranged from as low as $500 to$2.5 million for construction, from $4,000 to $156,000 for design and environmental studies,from $500 to $105,000 for O&M, and from $300 to $52,000 for annual reporting.

Table 2-7Fish Passage Costs (in 1991 dollars) for Upstream andDownstream Fish Passage Mitigation for 34 ReportingHydropower Facilities in the United States.

Cost Parameter Reported Cost Range

Upstream passage

Capital costs $21,000–$37,000,000

Design/environmental study costs $2,700–$190,000

Operation and maintenance costs $1,000–$717,000

Annual monitoring and reporting costs $1,600–$154,000

Downstream passage

Capital costs $416–$13,777,000

Design/environmental study costs $3,200–$7,292,000

Operation and maintenance costs $216–$98,500

Annual monitoring and reporting costs $0–$10,800

Source: Sale et al. (1991).

Evaluation Results

2-48

Table 2-8Fish Passage Costs (in 1993 dollars) for Upstream andDownstream Fish Passage Mitigation for 50 ReportingHydropower Facilities in the United States.

Cost Parameter Reported Cost Range

Upstream passage

Capital costs $1,000–$34,600,000



Annual reporting costs $900–$265,000

Downstream passage

Capital costs $500–$2,593,000



Annual reporting costs $300–$52,000

Source: Francfort et al. (1994).

Construction of the fishway proposed for the Grand Valley Diversion Dam on the GunnisonRiver has been estimated to cost between $3,100,000 and $3,800,000, while annual operationand maintenance costs are estimated to be $15,000 to $25,000 per year (USDOI 2002). Ajuvenile fish bypass system was installed at the John Day Dam to increase survival rates ofdownstream migrant fish. The system was completed in 1987 at a cost of $23,000,000 (USACE2002f).

Costs for removal or breaching of a dam will be strongly linked to the size (height and width)and type (earthen, concrete) of the dam to be removed. Removal costs may include not only costsassociated with the physical removal and disposal of the dam and debris, but also thoseassociated with the removal and disposal of the sediments that have accumulated on the upstreamside of the dam. Major sediment control measures may also be required to prevent downstreamtransport of the accumulated sediments, adding further cost to the overall project. In some cases,these sediments may contain high levels of organic and inorganic chemicals that may requirespecial handling and disposal as contaminated materials.

A notch fishway was constructed on the Potomac River at Little Falls Dam, Maryland, to restoreaccess of migratory fish to 10 miles of historic spawning and nursery habitat. The notch fishway,which included 36-foot-wide and 4-foot-deep notch and three labyrinth weirs, was constructed ata cost of $2,000,000 (Coastal America 1999). Removal of a 3-foot-high, 40-foot-wide dam onMuddy Creek in Pennsylvania was reported to cost only $1,500, while removal of the 85-foot-

Evaluation Results

2-49

high, 720-foot-wide Two Mile Dam on the Santa Fe River in New Mexico cost $3.2 million(American Rivers 2002). Table 2-9 summarizes costs for some dam removals conducted in theUnited States between 1990 and 1999.


Fish passage restoration has been shown to be very beneficial in the recovery of migratory fishstocks, and numerous opportunities exist for the application of this environmental enhancementapproach. For example, more than 76,000 dams in the United States are 6 feet or more high(Heinz Center 2002), and each poses some level of impediment to fish movement at a local orregional scale. While many of these dams continue to have important roles in flood control,irrigation, and water supply, many others are obsolete, abandoned, or pose safety concerns(Heinz Center 2002).

Table 2-9Costs for Various Dam Removals in the United States, 1990–1999.

State

Number ofDams

RemovedRange of Dam

Heights (ft)Range of Dam

Widths (ft) Range of Removal Costs

California 4 7−10 57–400 $29,000–$9,500,000

Colorado 1 56 200 $1,500,000

Connecticut 7 NAa NA $8,000,000

Maine 5 9–24 50 -917 $13,000–$2,100,000

Minnesota 3 9–20 120–150 $46,000–$208,000

North Carolina 2 7 135–260 $64,000–$205,000

New Mexico 1 85 720 $3,200,000

Ohio 1 8 100 $10,000

Oregon 4 8–28 56–225 $30,000–$1,200,000

Pennsylvania 12 3–13 10–383 $1,500–$200,000

Vermont 1 19 90 $550,000

Washington 1 32 240 $52,000

Wisconsin 32 10–60 60–450 $5,000–$600,000

a NA = not available

Source: American Rivers (2002).

Evaluation Results

2-50

Numerous advantages are associated with the use of fish passage restoration to mitigate CWISoperational impacts (Table 2-10). Depending on the type of restoration activity considered,advantages may include simple design and construction requirements, control of unwantedspecies, restoration of natural flow conditions, and effectiveness for strong- and weak-swimmingfishes. In addition, the various methods for restoring fish passage have a wealth of supportingscientific knowledge (e.g., fisheries, aquatic ecology, hydrology, engineering) (seeSection 2.4.1). Fish passage restoration programs can be designed to target species such asendangered (USFWS 2002a) or recreational fishes (USACE 2002b,e). Fish restoration programsmay also be developed to restore access by the general fish community to historic habitat.

Limitations with fish passage approaches may include (depending on the specific approach) highcosts for very large (tall) obstacles, continuous maintenance requirements, high water or flowrequirements, and a potential for increased stress and injury of the fish (Table 2-10). In addition,opportunities for restoring fish passage may not be available in the immediate location or withinthe same watershed as the CWIS, and thus may not be able to target the species most impactedby CWIS operations.

While fish passage restoration may be beneficial in the recovery of migratory fish stocks or therestoration of fish community assemblages, its applicability for targeting species that are directlyaffected by CWIS operations must be carefully considered. Two factors are important inconsidering fish passage restoration as a suitable environmental enhancement approach formitigating CWIS operational impacts. First, the species impacted by CWIS operations should bethe species that would be directly or indirectly benefited by fish passage restoration. Second, thelocation of a proposed fish passage restoration should be such that any benefits would be realizedby the species affected by CWIS operations. If both of these factors cannot be satisfied, then anybenefits from the restoration of fish passage should be viewed as general benefits to overallfisheries resources.

2.4.8 Summary

The restoration of fish passage has a long history and extensive body of knowledge and research,and research continues throughout the world. In fact, the level of knowledge in this area is solarge that it may be considered a distinct multidisciplinary branch of fisheries science. There isno single solution for restoring fish passage. Approaches include the installation of fishways, fishlifts, fish locks, transportation, and dam removal. Effective fish passage design for a specific siteand target species will require a thorough understanding of both the biology and behavior of thetarget species, a detailed understanding of hydraulic conditions at the locations of the plannedrestoration, and careful engineering design. Technologies for fish passage are considered welldeveloped and understood and have been successfully implemented at many locations. Fishpassage failure tends to result from less-than-optimal design criteria based on physical,hydrologic, and behavioral information, or lack of adequate attention to operation andmaintenance of facilities. Effective fish passage design for a specific site requires thoroughunderstanding of site characteristics (including design and operational information in the case ofhydropower dams or water diversions).

Evaluation Results

2-51

Table 2-10Advantages and Limitations of Fish Passage Restoration for Mitigating CWISOperational Impacts.

Fish PassageTechnique Advantages Limitations

Fishways Relatively simple design

Relatively inexpensive

Relatively low maintenance andcost

Demonstrated effectiveness inrestoring upstream anddownstream fish passage

Must be designed to complement target speciessize and swimming capabilities

Long-term maintenance to prevent debris blockage

Not cost-effective for large (tall) obstacles

Number of fish accommodated/unit time limited byfishway dimensions

May allow passage of unwanted species

Fish locks andlifts

Well suited for weak-swimmingfish

Can transport large numbers offish/unit time

Can be used to provide fish forupstream stocking

Can control passage ofunwanted species

More economical for high headsites

Fish may experience crowding during peakmigratory period

Require adequate attraction flows

Mechanically complex, with potentially greatermaintenance needs

Relatively high operation and maintenance costs

Fish may incur increased stress and mortality fromtransport and handling

Locks may require very large amounts of water

Potential for fallback through spillway after releaseabove obstacle

Dam removal Complete dam removal restoresnatural flow conditions

Provides fish passage restorationfor all species

Little or no maintenance

Public safety hazards reduced oreliminated

Relatively high costs

Potential sediment transport and contaminationissues

Transportation May be less costly than other fishpassage techniques

Can target specific species

Beneficial when long reservoirsare involved

Labor intensive

Fish may incur increased stress, injury, or mortality

Possible impaired homing

Possible delay in migration

Low capacity to move fish during peak migration

Physicalbarriers andguidancedevices

Many technologies wellunderstood

Effective for any species of thesize and swimming abilitytargeted by the design

Design requires knowledge of site hydrauliccharacteristics and swimming ability and size oftarget fish

Fish may incur increased stress and mortality fromtransport and release

Evaluation Results

2-52

2.5 Fish Stocking


Fish stocking has been used as a means to enhance fish populations for well over 100 years.Hatcheries were originally operated to mitigate for loss of natural spawning habitat and had thegoal of enhancing the harvest of adult fish for commercial fisheries (Flagg et al. 2000). Fishstocking is now conducted for a number of reasons, including supplementation, mitigation,restoration, preservation, and research. Environmental concerns also have become a focus of fishstocking programs. Fish stocking (including hatchery operations) may now be considered adistinct branch of fisheries science based on the level of knowledge and ongoing research on thistopic.

Fish stocking as an enhancement tool requiresconsideration of the season and locality of releases and thesize and numbers of fishes to be released. These factorsmust be balanced against economic considerations,including the cost of hatchery operations compared withthe economic benefits resulting from stocking (Travis et al.1998). Conditions where stocking hatchery fish may bejustified include (1) stocking waters that contain no fish;(2) stocking for “put and take” or “put, grow, and take”fisheries; (3) stocking to restore native species (includingthreatened or endangered species) that have declined;(4) stocking to introduce a new species or new genetic strain; (5) stocking for research purposes;(6) stocking predators to balance populations or for biological control; (7) stocking to offset fishkills caused by low oxygen levels or pollution; and (8) stocking to overcome habitat limitations(Heidinger 1993, Holt 1993, Tucker 1999, Wattendorf 2002). Stocking may be the only practicalalternative where natural spawning has been disrupted, spawning grounds have been destroyedor have become inaccessible, exploitation is extensive, production is reduced, or a new species isdesired (Sheehan and Rasmussen 1993).

Conservation hatcheries can play a major role in the recovery of threatened and endangeredspecies, while production hatcheries are significant contributors to harvests for subsistence,recreational, commercial, and ceremonial fisheries (Hatchery Scientific Review Group 2000).State and private hatcheries have been successful in providing stocks of warm- and coldwaterfishes for recreational and commercial uses. Some are also involved in the recovery of wildsalmon runs. In contrast, the National Fish Hatchery System has the responsibility to conserve,restore, enhance, and manage the nation’s fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems. Thisresponsibility includes the recovery of threatened and endangered species, restoration of nativefish populations, mitigation for fishery losses from federal water projects, and providing fishstocks to benefit Tribes and National Wildlife Refuges (USFWS 2002b).

Stocking has been a major component of recovery programs for salmonids in the Northwest andthe Great Lakes and for endangered species in the Colorado River Basin. Early recovery attempts

Text Box 2-3. What IsSupplementation?

Supplementation is the stocking offish into natural habitats toincrease the abundance ofnaturally reproducing fishpopulations (see Flagg et al.2000).

Evaluation Results

2-53

for endangered Colorado River fish generally met with failure because stocking was conductedwithout any consideration of habitat restoration. For example, the lack of sufficient wetland areasand slow-moving backwaters may have decreased the ability of some stocked fishes to surviveand reproduce (USFWS 2002a). Hatcheries used to help restore Colorado River species nowwork with the following guidelines: (1) raising fish whose behavior and genetic backgroundclosely match that of wild fish; (2) whenever possible, adult fish used as brood stock comedirectly from the wild; (3) a large number of adult fish are used to produce offspring in order tomaintain genetic diversity of young; and (4) refuge ponds are used to maintain endangered fishas insurance against a catastrophic event (e.g., chemical spill) in the Colorado River (USFWS2002a).

Stocking, in combination with reduced fishing mortality (e.g., moratoria or size limits),accelerated the recovery of striped bass stocks in the Chesapeake Bay (Richards and Rago 1999).Hatcheries and fish stocking are important components of Alaska’s salmon enhancementprogram. About 1.4 billion salmon were released and nearly 40 million were harvested as aresult of this program (McNair 2001).

Artificial propagation of fish species in the United State has become a major industry. Forexample, hatcheries provide more than 90% of the inland catch of resident salmonids, about 75%of all coho and chinook, and 88% of all steelhead harvested in Washington (WashingtonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife 1997). About 40% of all recreational fishing in Michigandepends on stocked fish, including 70% of Great Lakes salmonids (Michigan Department ofNatural Resources 2002). Hatcheries can also have an important role in meeting Tribal treatyharvest obligations (Hatchery Scientific Review Group 2002). The United States currently hasabout 370 state-operated and more than 1,200 privately operated coldwater (e.g., salmon andtrout) aquaculture facilities (Epifanio 2000). The National Fish Hatchery System consists of70 hatcheries, 7 technology centers, and 9 fish health centers operated by the USFWS (USFWS2002b). Table 2-11 summarizes the goals and highlights of several of the national fish hatcheries.

In the 1980s, the striped bass population in the Savannah River Estuary suffered a drastic declinebecause of high salinities. After the causes of the high salinities were corrected, the GeorgiaDepartment of Natural Resources in 1990 began a hatchery-based stock-enhancement programaimed at restoring a self-sustaining striped bass population in the Savannah River. Recovery ofthe striped bass population may already have begun, but it is still at an early stage. The time lagbetween stocking of juveniles and their maturation into large, highly fecund females could take8 to 10 years (Will et al. 2002).

An experimental red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) stock enhancement program was conducted inPort Royal Sound in South Carolina (Collins et al. 2002). Many of the stocked fish remained inthe general area of release until reaching maturity. These results suggest that small areascontaining appropriate habitat could be designated as marine reserves (i.e., no-take zones) inorder to increase the success of the stocking program and thus enhance recruitment to thespawning stock of red drum (and possibly other estuarine species) (Collins et al. 2002). Studieshave also shown that the release of hatchery-reared blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) juveniles hasthe potential to enhance local blue crab stocks when linked to other management approaches

Evaluation Results

2-54

Table 2-11Goals and Highlights of Select National Fish Hatcheries (NHFs).

Hatchery and AnnualOperating Budget Goals and Highlights

Bears Bluff NFHWadmalaw Island, SC$213,600 (FY 01)

Restore and manage interjurisdictional coastal and riverinefishes such as shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. Produced116,000 endangered shortnose sturgeon fry in FY 99. Nohatchery-produced sturgeon are used for restocking, althoughthat is a probable long-term objective of the recovery effort.

Chattahoochee Forest NFHSuches, GA$363,400 (FY 01)

Annual production of about 120,000 pounds of rainbow troutthat are stocked in public waters to compensate for federalwater development projects in northern Georgia. Productionfrom hatchery accounts for more than 360,000 angler dayswith an economic value of more than $30 million.

Dale Hollow NFHCelina, TN$563,819 (FY 01)

Annual production of more than 1.6 million rainbow trout,210,000 brown trout, and 100,000 lake trout for stocking inTennessee and Georgia as mitigation for water developmentprojects (impoundments).

Natchitoches NFHNatchitoches, LA$450,000 (FY 01)

Annual production of between 500,000 and 750,000 stripedfingerlings; spawn about 750,000 paddlefish fry annually;spawn and culture endangered pallid sturgeon; and providelargemouth bass, bluegill and catfish for recreational fishing.

Norfolk NFHMountain Home, AR$640,700 (FY 00)

Annual production of 500,000 pounds of rainbow, cutthroat,and brown trout for statutory mitigation fish stocking foreastern Oklahoma and the White River Basin in northernArkansas.

Private John Allen NFHTupelo, MS$254,000 (FY 02)

Annual production of 250,000 Gulf Coast striped bass;40,000 paddlefish; 150,000 walleye; and more than500,000 largemouth bass, bluegill, redear sunfish and channelcatfish. Also developing spawning and rearing techniques forsturgeon and alligator gar.

Wolf Creek NFHJamestown, KY$296,900 (FY 01)

Annual stocking of 682,400 rainbow trout and 91,950 browntrout throughout Kentucky for federal mitigation waters andreimbursable agreements to meet management goals forstate-controlled waters. The annual direct and indirecteconomic benefits of the stocking program are estimated at$50 million and more than $75 million, respectively.

Source: USFWS (2002d).

Evaluation Results

2-55

(e.g., the development of protected migratory corridors that link juvenile release areas tospawning sanctuaries; Zohar et al. 2003).

The USFWS, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, New York Department ofEnvironmental Conservation, and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, in cooperationwith several energy companies, have used fish stocking in conjunction with other methods(e.g., regulating harvest, improving degraded habitat, and constructing fish passage facilities) torestore shad to tributary streams (e.g., Susquehanna River) of the Chesapeake Bay (Native FishConservancy 2002). The actual stocking is done by a number of government agencies, nonprofitgroups, schools, and Native Americans. By stocking young shad in upstream areas that havebeen inaccessible to migration for decades, adult fish would return to spawn in those areas whenthey are 4 to 5 years old (Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay 2000). These methods are showingpositive results. It has been estimated that it will take 10 to 15 years to see recovery of theAmerican shad in the James River with continued hatchery operations or 20 to 30 years torebuild the population without further stocking (Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay 1994). Therestoration program goal is to stock 20 to 25 million young shad annually in a number oftributaries of the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. This goal has beenexceeded in some years (e.g., 33 million in 1998, 27 million in 1999, 36 million in 2000, and31 million in 2001) (Blankenship 1999, 2001, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay 2000). Similarsuccess is being realized from a combination of installed fish ladders and stocking in the LehighRiver, a tributary of the Delaware River (Hendricks et al. 2002). The goal is to build up shadpopulations to the point where natural reproduction from returning adults would replace the needfor hatchery efforts (Blankenship 2001).


The logic behind using fish stocking to mitigate CWIS impacts is that releasing a large numberof larvae, juvenile, or adult fishes into a water body may directly compensate for the mortalityassociated with impingement and entrainment. Secor and Houde (1998) concluded that in yearsof poor natural recruitment, stocking post yolk-sac larvae into estuarine tributaries couldsupplement stocks of striped bass and possibly other anadromous species that experience highembryo and yolk-sac larvae mortality. This same principle could be applied to species thatexperience sufficiently high entrainment losses of eggs or larvae to prevent them from attainingtheir potential carrying capacity.

Ecological, economic, and political considerations must be taken into account when fish stockingis being considered to mitigate impingement and entrainment losses. A stocking program wouldbenefit from the participation of fisheries managers, geneticists, fish culturists, bioengineers,water quality specialists, nutritionists, and ecologists (Stickney 1994). The participation ofrepresentatives from the energy company, regulatory agencies, and citizen and environmentalgroups would also be advantageous.

Various approaches can be used to determine the applicability of using fish stocking to mitigateCWIS impacts. For example, modeling can be used to determine population-level risks fromimpingement and entrainment and to determine stocking levels required to mitigate those CWIS

Evaluation Results

2-56

impacts. Information would be needed on which species of fish should be stocked, whatnumbers and sizes should be stocked, and where and when the stocking should occur. Forinstance, the release of fish should be timed to balance the availability of appropriate foodresources while minimizing predator pressures (Travis et al. 1998). The required informationcan be obtained from impingement and entrainment monitoring, creel surveys, and habitatmapping. Additional information will be needed on the survival and growth of stocked fish,their potential to disperse throughout the water body, habitat carrying capacity, and other items.

Determining the amount of stocking that would be required to compensate for CWIS losses ismore easily accomplished if the same species that are impinged or entrained are also availablefor stocking. It is more difficult to estimate how much stocking would be needed to provide aparticular level of compensation for fish species that are indirectly impacted by CWIS (e.g., fishthat prey upon the impinged species). Section 4.4 provides a more detailed discussion onestablishing fish stocking levels to compensate for CWIS impacts.

Hatchery management decisions must be made as part of a systemwide effort (HatcheryScientific Review Group 2002). A number of the areawide recommendations made for the PugetSound and Coastal Washington Hatchery Reform Project by the Hatchery Scientific ReviewGroup (2002) are applicable to many regions and would be applicable to fish stocking as a meansto mitigate system losses from impingement and entrainment. These recommendations include(1) a regional approach to managing hatchery programs, (2) operation of hatcheries within thecontext of their ecosystems, (3) measuring success in terms of contribution to harvest andconservation goals, (4) emphasizing quality over quantity of fish released, (5) incorporatingflexibility into hatchery design and operation, (6) evaluating hatchery programs regularly,(7) using in-basin rearing and locally adapted broodstocks, (8) taking eggs over the naturalperiod of adult return, (9) developing spawning protocols to maximize effective population size,and (10) considering both freshwater and marine carrying capacities in sizing hatchery programs.

Fish stocking can be used as the primary means to compensate for impingement and entrainmentwhen the impacted species can be obtained from a hatchery or when suitable restoration sites arenot available for enhancement (USEPA 2001a). In 1992, the San Onofre Nuclear GeneratingStation was required to contribute $1.2 million toward construction of an experimental fishhatchery and subsequent evaluation program for restoration of a white sea bass fishery.

A fishery enhancement program was used to mitigate entrainment losses from the Chalk PointPower Station. The fishery of the Patuxent River was being adversely impacted by entrainmentof forage fish (bay anchovies). Entrainment decreased the annual production of bay anchovies by10 to 20% which in turn was causing losses of game fish (especially striped bass) by 4 to 20%.This fish loss equated to an annual economic loss of $150,000 to $860,000. The enhancementprogram included stocking of striped bass and other species (e.g., American shad) designated bythe Maryland Department of Natural Resources and the removal of obstructions to migratory fish(Bailey et al. 2000).

The striped bass stocking conducted by the energy company was part of a larger striped bassrestoration program throughout the Chesapeake Bay. The energy company contributed more than3 million of the 11 million striped bass that were stocked. The energy company’s efforts

Evaluation Results

2-57

contributed 30% of the striped bass spawning stock in the Patuxent River and 10% of the stripedbass fishery in Chesapeake Bay near the Patuxent River. The energy company shifted itsstocking efforts to American and hickory shads within the Patuxent and Choptank Rivers as partof a basinwide effort to restore shad to tributaries of Chesapeake Bay (Bailey et al. 2000,Willenborg 1999). In 2001, the energy company’s aquaculture program produced more than75,000 striped bass, 75,000 yellow perch, 230,000 American and hickory shad, and19,000 largemouth bass (Mirant Corporation 2002).

At the Quad Cities Station, located on Pool 14 of the upper Mississippi River, walleye(Stizostedion vitreum) are reared in the retired spray cooling canal, and hybrid striped bass(Morone saxatilis x M. chrysops) are reared in the station’s fish laboratory for release into theMississippi River as part of the agreement to allow the station to operate in the open-cycle mode(LaJeone and Monzingo 2000). Recreational angling opportunities for both species have greatlyimproved in Pool 14 and several other navigation pools as a result of this commitment.Conservatively, the adult walleye population in Pool 14 consists of 30% stocked fish (LaJeoneand Monzingo 2000).

2.5.3 Monitoring

Monitoring should be implemented to (1) determine that stocked fish survive, grow, andcontribute to recruitment (i.e., measure stocking success); and (2) ensure that hatchery-raised fishdo not displace the wild stock population (where this issue is of concern) (Leber et al. 1996).Periodic monitoring would identify whether changes were needed in the stocking program(e.g., stocking level and frequency, locations, and species or life-history stages). Long-termmonitoring may be necessary to evaluate stocking success because of the uncertainty inpredicting the success of artificial production and because future ecosystem conditions couldchange from either anthropogenic alterations or natural variation (ISAB 2000).

2.5.4 Cost

Hatchery construction, operation, and maintenance can be costly. For example, the annualoperating costs for the fish culture program run by the New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation is about $4.6 million for an annual production of about 1 millionpounds of fish ($4.60/lb) (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 2002).The proposed 2003 budget for the operations and maintenance of the National Fish HatcherySystem is more than $55 million (USFWS 2002c). Using the National Fish Hatchery operationand maintenance cost averages, the estimated production cost per stocked fish (5 to 10 incheslong) is $1.42 (1999 dollars) (USEPA 2001a). The USEPA (2001a) estimated that 25,000 to100,000 fish per year (1 million per year for a worst-case scenario) would need to be stocked tocompensate for cooling water intake losses, and that restocking would typically have to be doneon a yearly basis. Therefore, the yearly costs could range upwards of $145,000 (cost of100,000 fish and their transportation) (nearly $1.45 million for the worst-case scenario).However, these cost estimates are economically feasible compared with the cost of upgrades andannual operating and maintenance costs for intake screens or cooling towers (USEPA 2001a).

Evaluation Results

2-58

The annual cost of Wisconsin’s contributions to salmonid stocking in the Great Lakes is about$2.5 million. However, this expense also includes other activities, such as assessment of thestocking program and stocking warmwater species into the lakes. This modest investment instocking returns about $100 million in direct expenditures and a $200 million economic output(Bureau of Fisheries Management and Habitat Protection 1999). The cost/benefit ratio forproducing fish at the major Florida freshwater hatchery is $4 to $6 for every dollar spent(Wattendorf 2002).

From the mid-1970s thru 1997, various energy companies invested more than $50 million for theAmerican shad restoration in the Susquehanna River (for both hatchery operations and fishpassage facilities) (Alliance for the Chesapeake 1997). However, successful enhancements canproduce long-term economic benefits. Restoring recreational and commercial shad and riverherring fisheries on the James River could be worth $5 to $7 million per year (Alliance for theChesapeake 1997). However, until population restoration is complete, such economic benefitswould not be realized. Investments to restore shad in Virginia has totaled about $13 to $15 perfish based on an estimate of 1 of 400 stocked fry surviving to returning as a spawning adult.Opening Virginia’s rivers to fishing before the population is fully restored would put an end tostocking efforts, as spending $13 or more on a fish with a market value of $3 to $4 is notpractical (Alliance for the Chesapeake 1998).

The total costs for rearing 7.8 million striped bass at U.S. federal hatcheries and power companyhatcheries during the period 1985 thru 1995 were estimated at more than $7.1 million (more than$0.91 per fish) (Rufilson and Laney 1999). Because costs of hatchery and stocking operationscan be high, Rufilson and Laney (1999) suggest that surveys of juveniles and adults should beconducted to determine the most cost-effective release strategies, including age at release andoptimal release conditions (e.g., salinity, temperature, and time of day for future potentialstocking programs).


Relative to impingement and entrainment mitigation, oneadvantage of fish stocking is that it can be designated tospecifically target those species impacted by CWISoperations. Hatchery operations could also be used to stock aspecies in peril for reasons other than impingement orentrainment. For example, Southern California Edisonprovided $4.7 million in funding for a white seabasshatchery to compensate for impingement and entrainment ofother fish species at the San Onofre Nuclear GeneratingStation (Southern California Edison 2000).

Positive impacts associated with stocking can also includethe increase of prey (e.g., the hatchery fish) for piscivorousspecies (Pearsons and Hopley 1999). Conservationhatcheries can be important for the recovery of a threatened

Text Box 2-4. HowHatcheries Affect Natural

Populations

Hatchery operations affect wildpopulations and their environmentby:

• Physical structures,

• Ecological interactions, and

• Genetic mechanisms(Hatchery Scientific ReviewGroup 2000).

Evaluation Results

2-59

or endangered species by maintaining gene banks to avoid extinction, minimizing the risk ofunpredictable environmental events, supplementing under-recruited wild populations that arebelow their natural carrying capacity, and introducing and maintaining naturally spawning stocksinto barren habitats (Hatchery Scientific Review Group 2000).

In some situations, stocking can have both beneficial and adverse impacts. For example,salmonid stocking can create valuable recreational and commercial fisheries, but it also has thepotential to replace indigenous species (Hilborn 1992, Joint Hatchery Review Committee 2001).It is necessary to balance the enhancement benefits of hatchery production against the potentialecological and/or genetic costs of stocked fish (Pearsons and Hopley 1999).

A central issue in stocking programs is whether hatchery fish enhance or replace naturalproduction (see Secor and Houde 1998). Table 2-12 summarizes some of the beneficial andadverse effects associated with both fish stocking and the presence and operation of the hatcheryitself.

Some negative results have been associated with stocking. Hatcheries have been identified as oneof the factors responsible for the depletion of naturally spawning salmon stocks in areas such asthe American Northwest (Hatchery Scientific Review Group 2002). Stocking may not onlyreplace the native species being supplemented (e.g., genetic risks associated with interbreeding),but may also pose ecological risks to other species inhabiting the water body (e.g., by competition,displacement, predation, or pathogenic interactions) (Pearsons and Hopley 1999, Stickney 1994).Microbial infections (and other diseases) can sicken or kill fish in hatcheries, aquaculture pens,and captive broodstock, and, in turn, may impact wild stocks (NWFSC undated b).

The primary way to minimize the risks of stocking is to minimize interactions between hatcheryand natural stocks. Three ways to reduce interactions are (1) reduce hatchery production,(2) minimize the straying of hatchery stocks to areas where natural populations are notinfluenced by hatchery production, and (3) minimize spawning of hatchery-reared fish that didnot originate from the stocked water body (Joint Hatchery Review Committee 2001).

Captive rearing is one of the most promising means to preserve and restore depleted salmonstocks with minimal adverse impact on existing wild salmon (NWFSC undated a). However,many hatchery environments differ from “wild” environments relative to food, substrate, fishdensity, temperature, flow regimes, competitors, and predators (Waples 1999). Some of thedifferences between the hatchery and the “wild” environment can be ameliorated by designingnew (or modifying existing) facilities to more closely mimic the environment that the stockedfish will encounter when released (Stickney 1994). The “hatchery” fish development cycle canalso be drastically different than that for “wild” fish. For example, different hatcheries may beused for specific salmonid development stages (Iowa Department of Natural Resources 2002).

2.5.6 Summary

Fish stocking can be used as a stand-alone, long-term enhancement method (e.g., if a site forhabitat restoration is not available) (USEPA 2001a). Where use of stocking is the key component

Evaluation Results

2-60

Table 2-12Advantages and Limitations Associated with Stocked Fish and Hatchery Presenceand Operation.

Limitations

Advantages Fish StockingHatchery Presence

and Operation

Higher egg-smolt survival

Increase stock yield and rateof recovery

Conservation of rare andendangered species

Lower contaminantconcentrations than wildindividuals

Nutrient enrichment (viasalmon carcasssupplementation)

Commercial and recreationalbenefits (including theintroduction of forage or trophyspecies)

Ability to stock specificspecies, life stages, andlocations

Satisfy public and politicalpressures

Mitigate existing conditionssuch as habitat limitations

Redistribute fishing pressure

Lower smolt-adult survival

Inefficient foraging behavior

Higher aggression and stress

Higher straying

Higher mortality

Surface habitat preference

Low predator avoidanceconditioning

Lower breeding success

Less variable and dullercoloration

Genetic interactions withnative/wild fish

Predation and competition

Disease transmission (to fishand amphibians)

Nutrient deficiencies

Ecological function (e.g., lowerdiversity and productivity)

Blockage to migration

Water quality degradation

Riparian loss and modification

Harassment from humanpresence

Instream flow modification

Impingement and entrainment

Exotic species introductions

Sources: Edwards et al. (2000), Felton et al. (1994), Flagg et al. (2000), Fleming and Gross(1992), Heidinger 1993, Kiesecker et al. 2001, Olla et al. (1998), Phillippart (1995), Polovina(1991), Hatchery Scientific Review Group (2000, 2002), Stafford and Haines (1997), Zabel andWilliams (2002).

Evaluation Results

2-61

of a fisheries management program, funding from an energy company could be applied to thoseefforts (e.g., as was done by the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station). Fish stocking can alsobe a component of an adaptive management plan that draws upon a number of enhancementapproaches, such as restoration of fish passage or wetland creation. Adaptive management can bedefined as systematic acquisition and application of reliable information to improve managementover time (Wilhere 2002). Where adaptive habitat enhancements are a viable option, fishstocking is applicable as an interim action. For instance, stocking could be conducted during the3 to 15 years it could take to restore a wetland or the 1 to 5 years to complete an estuary/tidalriver restoration project (USEPA 2001a). Fish stocking would also be a complementary actionwhere fish passage is used as an enhancement method. For example, shad restoration efforts inthe Susquehanna River required a combination of regulating harvest of adult fish, improvingdegraded habitats, constructing fish passage facilities, and restocking upstream of the formerblockage (Native Fish Conservancy 2002). In summary, the environmental and economicadvantages and limitations of fish stocking would need to be evaluated against otherenhancement methods (including best technology available for CWISs) and fishery managementgoals before being implemented to mitigate impingement and entrainment impacts.

2.6 Habitat Protection


Human encroachment in the form of residential and commercial development threatens todestroy or degrade many natural areas that provide important habitat for a variety of species.In an attempt to preserve remaining natural areas and to maintain their integrity, conservationorganizations; individuals; corporations; and local, state, and federal governments often turn tohabitat protection measures. Habitat protection through outright land acquisition, by its verydefinition, describes the process through which land and water resources and the speciesliving therein are protected and preserved from any future threat (Press et al. 1996).Currently, through the help of individuals and the private sector, conservation organizationssuch as The Nature Conservancy (http://www. nature.org) and the Conservation Fund(http://www.conservationfund.org) have assisted in preserving and protecting land in all50 of the states (Conservation Fund 2001). Habitat protection may be a means to mitigate fordamages caused to the environment by operations or construction. Several approaches andlevels of habitat protection are available, depending on the situation.

Whether undertaken by a conservation organization or a private-sector party, the process ofhabitat protection follows a basic approach, with the complexity of the details depending on thespecifics of the habitat protection goals and objectives. After a decision has been made thathabitat protection is the proper approach, the first step is to identify what species, habitat type, orproperty is to be protected. Although property may be chosen on the basis of the flora and/orfauna associated with that habitat, such as threatened or endangered species, the selection of aparticular property is often determined by the availability of purchasable natural lands. Once aproperty is determined to be of interest, it is necessary to outline what activities or actionsrelative to maintenance, monitoring, and/or restoration may be necessary. This information,

Evaluation Results

2-62

along with identification of potential hazards (such as non-point-source pollution, borders sharedwith those who may disrupt or disregard preservation efforts, or any other factors that couldimpact the long-term success of the habitat protection effort) will help to support the decision topurchase the property of interest. In the event that several potential properties are identified, adecision must be made on which parcel (or combination of parcels) to purchase. Following thepurchase of the habitat, any restoration, management, monitoring, and protection activities arethen initiated.

Habitat protection has become the mission of many conservation organizations, for example,The Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund (http://www.wwf.org/), the ConservationFund, and Ducks Unlimited (http://www.ducks.org/). Although many groups that specializein habitat protection are of national or international scope, there are also numerous smallergroups whose efforts may be more regional or local. Examples of such smaller groupsinclude the Everglades Trust (Florida) (http://www.saveoureverglades.org/index.html),Save the Dunes Council (Indiana) (http://www.savedunes.org/), Jefferson Land Trust(Washington) (http://www.saveland.org/), the Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy(North Carolina) (http://www.appalachian.org/), and the Wilderness Land Trust (Colorado)(http://www.wildernesslandtrust.org/). Regardless of their scope, these organizations operateby accepting donations of land, money, goods, and services from individuals and private-sectorparties, with the monetary donations used for purchasing and managing natural areas(Table 2-13). Another sector that often protects habitat alone or by partnering with bothnational and local groups consists of government agencies. This group includes federal, state,and local governmental agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, and various state natural resource and conservation agencies, amongothers.

Regardless of the groups involved, two basic approaches are used in implementing habitatprotection: (1) direct purchase and sole responsibility for management of habitat and(2) partnering with another organization to complete the task. The private-sector parties may beinvolved at several levels with a conservation organization to complete a habitat protectionproject. These levels include hiring the conservation organization to manage company-ownedland for preservation, donating untargeted funds for general habitat protection use toconservation organizations, donating targeted funds while maintaining limited partnering withthe conservation organization, and donating targeted funds while participating in activepartnering. Several of these types of arrangements are summarized below.

Habitat Protection without Partnering. When a single entity undertakes a habitat protectioneffort, it must purchase and protect habitat by itself. Although this approach provides the entitysole recognition for the action and may allow for more specific project direction, it also leavesthem with the sole responsibility of negotiating land purchases, preserving the habitat, andmaintaining of the property and its ecological resources.

Partnering for Entity-Owned Land Management. Partnering is useful when a private-sectorparty owns a tract of land and wants assistance managing and monitoring it for habitat

Evaluation Results

2-63

Table 2-13Examples of Some of the Partnerships between Conservation Organizations and thePrivate Sector.

ConservationGroup Private-Sector Party Partnering Activities

The NatureConservancy

Cannon $10.3 million over last 10 years in funds, equipment,and volunteer services

General Motors $10 million over 10 years ($5.8 million in cash andmore than 140 trucks) and $10 million towardBrazilian rainforest purchase/restoration project

Nature Valley $500,000 since 1998 through highlighting TheNature Conservancy’s work on boxes and products

Second Nature Software $2.3 million since 1993 through donation of all after-tax company profits.

Southern Company $2.6 million since 1996

MBNA $5 million since 1995 through offering no-interestcredit cards to members and paying TNC a royaltyon each account

Royal Caribbean/CelebrityCruises

Marketing partners with The Nature Conservancy

The PreservationCollection

Ties with nature designs, 2% of net sales toconservancy

National Fish andWildlife Foundation

Exxon Mobil $9.1 million to date for 158 conservation projectsthrough Save the Tiger fund

Pacific Gas and ElectricCompany (PG&E)

$500,000 over three years to form the NatureRestoration Trust

Ducks Unlimited(DU)

Advantage Camo Proceeds from sales of goods with camouflagepattern, as well as cash and product donations

ARE Truck Caps andCovers

Sell Ducks Unlimited licensed products and areofficial sponsors of Ducks Unlimited

Budweiser Official sponsorship, $5 million over 25 yearsthrough artist-of-the year competition.

Chevrolet Provides vehicles for Ducks Unlimited and sellsDucks Unlimited edition Chevy trucks

Flambeau Products Donates a percentage of proceeds from decoy sales

Hancor, Inc. Donates a percentage of proceeds from water gateand pipe sales

Evaluation Results

2-64

Table 2-13 (Cont.).

ConservationGroup

Private-Sector Party Partnering Activities

Ducks Unlimited(DU) (cont.)

Innotek Donates dog training products for fundraising andproceeds from Ducks Unlimited labeledmerchandise

MBNA Support through Ducks Unlimited credit cards, totalof $40 million since 1986

Winchester Ammunition Supplies all trap loads for Ducks Unlimited sportingevents, as well as other support

The ConservationFund

American Airlines, AspenSkiing Company, TheBlack and DeckerCompany, Chevy ChaseBank, Florida RockIndustries, Inc., IBM,Pacific Gas & Electric,REI, The St. JoeCompany, United ParcelService, Wagner ForestManagement, Ltd., andmany more.

All corporate donations are of $1,000 or moreannually

Sources:

The Nature Conservancy (http://nature.org/aboutus/corporatepartnerships/index.html)The Conservation Fund (http://www.conservationfund.org/?article=2374&back=true)Ducks Unlimited (http://www.ducks.org/supportdu/official_partners.asp)

protection. The Nature Conservancy together with Baltimore Gas and Electric (BG&E), forexample, combined forces to manage and monitor an endangered beetle species. A major portion(90%) of the population of that beetle occurs on BG&E property at its Calvert Cliffs nuclearplant (Sawhill 1996). In this situation, BG&E benefited not only from an association with theconservation group, but also from hiring a knowledgeable conservation organization to manageand monitor their property. This arrangement saves the company from hiring and training theirown staff to do work that the conservation organization already has the experience andinfrastructure for doing.

Another example is the partnering of North Carolina Power and The Nature Conservancy. Inthis situation, a 5-km-long right-of-way owned by the energy company is managed andmaintained by The Nature Conservancy by using low growing native vegetation species ratherthen mowing and applying herbicides to maintain the right-of-way. Several rare plant speciesare thereby being preserved and protected from the traditional right-of-way managementpractices (Sawhill 1996). Although this arrangement provides further management andprotection of company-owned land, it does not necessarily protect habitat that was in danger ofbeing developed and does not necessarily mitigate for resources impacted by CWIS operations.

Evaluation Results

2-65

Partnering – Monetary Donation Only. Of the various ways the private sector can partner, themost direct, least participation-intensive involvement in habitat protection is the direct donationof funds to a conservation organization committed to the preservation of natural lands. Thisapproach is entirely “hands free” on the part of the funding donor, and because the funds areuntargeted, the conservation organization receiving the funds may use them wherever they feelappropriate. An example of this is the donation of $7 million by Duke Energy North America(DENA) to protect and preserve the Elkhorn Slough watershed in Moss Landing, California.This donation to the Elkhorn Slough Foundation, as required for Section 316(b) compliance bythe NPDES permit for the Moss Landing Power Plant, will be applied toward purchasing,protecting, and restoring the slough, as well as helping to fund a permanent endowment forstewardship. Another example of this type of partnering is the Great Lakes Fishery Trust, whichhelps to rehabilitate Great Lakes fish species, protect and enhance habitat of the Great Lakesfisheries, fund research projects that benefit Great Lakes resources, and acquire property for theaforementioned purposes (www.glft.org). This trust was created by a partnership of ConsumersEnergy, Detroit Edison, and several conservation organizations to address the issues of fishlosses at the Ludington pumped storage project hydroelectric facility in Michigan. These kindsof monetary donations can be effective means of partnering because they assist the conservationorganizations in successfully completing habitat protection and/or restoration projects that arealready in progress or that have been planned.

Partnering – Purchase and Protection. Alternatively, private-sector parties may be moreinteractive with the conservation organization of their choice by partnering toward the commongoal of protecting a specific habitat type, property, or watershed. In this kind of partnership, notonly does the conservation organization benefit from the assistance and funding from a corporatesponsor, but the private sector party itself also benefits from being directly associated with theproject and sharing responsibility for monitoring and maintenance, tasks that otherwise wouldhave to be executed alone. Another benefactor of these types of partnerships is the environment.

One benefit of this type of partnership is that habitat that would be too expensive and/orexpansive for a single entity to acquire and manage can be purchased under the partneringagreement. Large parcels of land may sustain more biodiversity or contain more species ofimportance than smaller parcels can sustain and may, therefore, be overall better investments forthe future of native habitat and biodiversity. The private-sector parties, through their partnershipwith the conservation organization, have direct input and are able to stipulate the use of fundsand other resources donated, and may even be able to protect habitat within their own watershed.For example, New York State and The Nature Conservancy partnered to protect of 44,650 acresof forested lands in New York. In 2002, the state of New York contributed more than half of the$9.1 million needed to preserve the Tug Hill Plateau in Lewis County (The Nature Conservancy2002). Without the partnering of the two entities, it is likely that neither would have been able topurchase the land on its own. Another example of partnering is The Nature Conservancy’sproject to acquire and preserve a 26,880-acre prairie in Oregon. The cost of the land was$11.7 million, but through the assistance of the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board(OWEB), more than 450 individuals, and the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), a total of$11 million was acquired to help obtain the property (The Nature Conservancy 2001). Althoughthis kind of partnering is more participation intensive on the part of the private-sector party than

Evaluation Results

2-66

donating funds alone, it ensures not only the protection of valued lands, but also ensures that theprivate-sector party is definitely and directly linked to the project.

As noted above, both the habitat and the private sector can benefit greatly through partnering toaccomplish habitat protection. Partnerships today are even extending to projects outside of theUnited States. For example, partnering of energy companies through the United States Initiativeon Joint Implementation has led to protection of rainforest in Belize (Sawhill 1996).


The objectives of habitat protection are to protect existing, functioning habitats, therebypreserving biodiversity and ensuring the survival and production of the species that live therein.Protecting habitat can have several direct and indirect applications toward mitigating the effectsof CWISs, as discussed below.

Direct. There is direct application to mitigation for CWIS impacts when the habitat beingprotected is in the same watershed and specifically benefits the same species being impacted byCWIS operations.

Indirect, But Within the Same Watershed. This type of arrangement occurs when habitat withinthe same watershed as the CWIS is protected, but the protection effort does not directly target thespecific species affected by CWIS operations.

Indirect, Outside of the Watershed. This category involves arrangements whereby the protectedhabitat does not directly benefit affected species and is also completely outside of the affectedwatershed.

When possible, protecting habitat that has direct benefits on local, affected species would bemost applicable to mitigating fish losses at CWISs because local fish species would be sparedfurther losses by habitat destruction. Protecting habitat within the same watershed would alsohelp to support other ecosystem functions. By protecting functioning wetlands, riparian systems,and other habitats that may positively affect local fish populations, a link may be establishedbetween fish losses incurred by CWIS operations and the protected habitat. Alternatively,habitat protection may target habitats outside the local area and thus have little or no effect onspecific fish populations impacted by CWIS operations. While this form of habitat protectionhas no connection to mitigating fish losses, the maintenance of regional and national biodiversitythrough habitat preservation has become an important effort in recent times, and thus in somesituations might be acceptable mitigation for fish losses at CWISs. The indirect nature of thisalternative for mitigating for fish losses at CWISs, however, necessitates discussion betweenregulatory agencies and the appropriate stakeholders prior to action.

If a decision is reached among stakeholders and regulators that habitat protection is indeedappropriate for mitigating fish losses at CWISs, questions may arise as to how much landprotection is actually appropriate. Often, by the very nature of this alternative, the amount ofproperty purchased is determined by the acreage and/or funds available. However, in order to

Evaluation Results

2-67

quantify the number of acres that might appropriately mitigate for fish losses, it may be fitting toconsider using the methods of other alternatives. Methods for quantifying wetland creation andrestoration, SAV, artificial habitat, fish passage restoration, and fish stocking technologies arediscussed in Section 4.4. By employing the methods discussed therein, it may be determined ifthe acreage available is adequate for mitigating fish losses at CWISs.

2.6.3 Monitoring

Although habitat that is protected through purchase may beconsidered pristine, monitoring will likely be required.Upon purchase, a general health assessment should beconducted to establish baseline conditions. Borders need tobe defined and maintained to ensure safety from outsideinfluences; biodiversity and general health need to bemonitored for changes. If any negative changes are foundthrough monitoring efforts, measures need to be taken toensure that the quality of the habitat does not furtherdeteriorate. Monitoring needs will vary by habitat type andmay include monitoring water quality in aquatic systems,surveying vegetation in terrestrial habitats, or anycombination of monitoring and survey programs that willprovide an overall assessment of the health of the habitat.Alternatively, when the donation of funds to anotheragency is part of the habitat protection effort, a certain level of administrative monitoring may benecessary to ensure that the donated funds are appropriated in the way they were intended.

2.6.4 Cost

Costs of protecting habitat through purchase are generally quite straightforward and involve(1) land acquisition and (2) upkeep, including monitoring. Land prices will most likely beconcurrent with existing fair market values and will vary depending on the type, quality, andlocation of the land of interest (Table 2-14). Additional costs incurred for monitoring andmaintenance will also vary by property size and location.

As shown in Table 2-14, actual property costs incurred by a conservation organization may beless than fair market value due to seller incentives, land donation, or conservation easements.More examples of this may be seen in Table 2-15, which provides a breakdown of some recentland purchase costs by The Nature Conservancy.

Text Box 2-5. Examples ofMonitoring Parameters

• Biodiversity

• Ecological Condition

• Contamination

• Border Integrity

• Invasive Species.

Evaluation Results

2-68

Table 2-14The Conservation Fund’s 2001 Land Purchase Costs, by Region.

RegionAcreage

PurchasedFair MarketValue (FMV) Actual Cost

Cost per Acre(FMV/Actual)

Northeast 22,113 $54.2 million $34.7 million $2,451 / $1,569

Southeast 131,866 $178.3 million $117.9 million $1,352 / $894

Midwest 11,759 $13.8 million $12.9 million $1,174 / $1,097

Mountain West 22,600 $49.5 million $34.7 million $1,748 / $1,535

West and Southwest 124, 039 $16.1 million $15.0 million $130 / $121

Nationally 303,500 $294.9 million $215.4 million $972 / $710

Source: Conservation Fund (2001).


In recent years, habitat protection has proven effective in preserving lands and native speciesacross the United States, and indeed throughout the world (Sawhill 1996, Conservation Fund2001). It has become easier for individuals and the private sector to become involved in habitatprotection through partnering with conservation organizations. Habitat protection may be anapplicable method for mitigating fish losses at CWISs, as it is a means of preserving not onlyhabitat, but biodiversity as well.

Advantages of protecting habitat, especially if it is within the affected watershed, includeprotecting habitat of fish species that may be directly impacted by CWIS operations. When landis being protected, there is often no need to spend time and money in restoration proceduresbecause at some level habitat function is already intact. Although protecting habitat within theaffected watershed would be the most desirable approach, limitations such as the availability ofpurchasable habitat, the threat of pollution or other ecological hazards, and finding that the onlyhabitat available within the watershed requires major restoration efforts, are all very real.Habitat protection has many advantages and limitations as a means of mitigating for CWISimpacts, and many of these advantages and limitations (see Table 2-16) depend on the level ofinvolvement with a partnering agency.

2.6.6 Summary

Land acquisition is a method frequently used to protect valuable habitat from future threats(Press et al. 1996). It has become the mission of several national, state, and local groups andorganizations, many of which partner with individuals and the private sector through donationsand services, to protect more habitat than one entity could provide alone. Many partneringhabitat protection projects have been successfully carried out across the United States andcontinue to be completed both here and abroad. Effective habitat protection projects to mitigate

Evaluation Results

2-69

for fish losses at CWISs would require agreement of regulation agencies and stakeholders as tothe applicability of the alternative, and in many cases would likely require partnering of theprivate sector with a conservation organization.

Evaluation R

esults

2-70

Table 2-15Recent Projects Completed by The Nature Conservancy and Their Costs.

Organization/Project

Location Habitat Type AcreagePurchase

Costs

Cost toConservancy

GroupOther

Contributors

Cost Per Acre (FMV /actual for Conservancy/

actual for partners) Comments

McCarranRanch, Nevada

20 miles of river 305 $800,000 $300,000 $500,000 $2,623 / $983 / $1,639 Protect and restore wetlandsand river’s natural contours:$7 million; entire project maycost up to $30 million

White LakePreserve,Louisiana

Freshwatermarsh, donatedby BP

71,000 $40,000,000 - land $563 / - / land donation Maintenance and upkeepfunding provided by privatesector group donating land;additional $1.25 million

Tug Hill Plateau,New York

Spruce and hard-wood forest lands

44,650 $9,100,000 $4,500,000 $4,600,000 $204 / $101 / $103 Additional funds provided byNew York State

Portland,Oregon

Prairie 26,880 $11,700,000 $6,500,000 $5,000,000 $435 / $241/ $186 An additional $4.3 million ininitial management costsbrings project total to$16 million

Atlanta, Georgia Pine woodlands,sandstoneoutcrop

756 $1,260,000 $600,000 $660,000a $1,667 / $794 / $873 The total price includesclosing costs andstewardship endowment

Lake Superior,Michigan

Forestedshoreline, river,waterfalls, glaciallakes

6,275 $12,500,000 - $12,500,000 $2,072 / $40 / $1,992 The Nature Conservancybrokered the deal forMichigan Resources TrustFund and only paid $250,000for interest charges

San Luis Valley,Colorado

Baca Ranch,sand dunes

97,000 $31,280,000 $13,080,000 $18,200,000a $322 / $135 / $188 Citizens of the Valley to raisefunds for interest on a$7 million loan

a More than one contributor.Source: The Nature Conservancy (www.nature.org).

Evaluation Results

2-71

Table 2-16Advantages and Limitations of Habitat Protection and Partnering with ConservationOrganizations as a Mitigation Tool for CWIS Operations.

Habitat ProtectionTechniques Advantages Limitations

Habitat Protection,Overall

Well-established protection agenciesare available for partnering activities.

Once protected, native habitat is nolonger in danger of development ordestruction.

When protecting, there is no need toattempt to restore ecologicalconditions, at some level they arealready intact.

There may still be the threat of negativeinfluences from bordering properties,such as pollution, invasive species, etc.

The habitat being protected may not bein the same watershed, let aloneprotecting the species affected by CWISoperations.

If protecting a habitat that is not inpristine condition but deemed to be ofhigh importance, some level ofrestoration may be necessary to restorecomplete function.

Specific habitat acquisition may belimited by land availability.

Habitat ProtectionWithout Partnering

Credit for the entire project is givento the entity protecting the habitat.

Protecting entity may be able totarget more specific resources thanif lobbying for their interests with apartner.

Private sector must do all landacquisition negotiations and must hireand/or train staff to monitor and maintainproperty.

Depending on availability, the habitatprotected may not be in the samewatershed, and may not targetresources that would best mitigate forCWIS impacts.

Partnering throughMonetary Donation

This is a fast and easy way to beinvolved in habitat protection.

The entity donating funds is able tohave their name associated withhabitat protection.

There is no need for in-houseexpertise.

Funds donated in this way will beappropriated according to the needs ofthe conservation organization. This doesnot ensure that habitat protectedbenefits resources that would bestmitigate for CWIS impacts.

Evaluation Results

2-72

Table 2-16 (Cont.)

Habitat ProtectionTechniques Advantages Limitations

Partnering throughMonetary Donation(cont.)

After a one-time donation of fundsthere is no further obligation tonegotiate with land owners, monitorland, or undertake any other tasksassociated with protecting habitat.

Partnering agency is relied upon fortechnical expertise and to conductday-to-day operations at protectionsite.

Partnering allows for resources to bepooled and for larger, moreexpensive tracts to be protectedthan one agency could do on theirown.

Partnering forHabitat Protection

Partnering with a conservationorganization allows for more directinput as to how and where the fundsare to be spent. This may includeprotecting CWIS-affected fish and/ormay allow for protection within thesame watershed, depending onavailability of lands.

Partnering conservation agency isrelied upon for technical expertiseand for conducting day-to-dayoperations at protection site.

Partnering allows for resources to bepooled and for larger, moreexpensive tracts to be protectedthan one agency could do by itself.

Depending on availability, the habitatprotected may not be in the samewatershed and may not benefitresources that would best mitigate forCWIS impacts.

This level of involvement will be greateron the part of the donating agency in theform of time, staff, and money.

3-1

3 TRADING STRATEGIES

Environmental trading occurs between two entities when one sells a credit for better-than-required environmental performance to the other entity that uses the credit in lieu of directlymeeting its own environmental performance requirements. For wastewater discharges from pointand nonpoint sources, this type of trading is known as effluent trading. The electric powerindustry has taken advantage of various types of air emissions trading during the past decades,but has not participated in water trading efforts to date. More recent trading information releasedby USEPA (described below) suggests that the agency is now more amenable to consideringmarket-incentive mechanisms such as trading than it has been in the past. Thus, trading mayrepresent a more viable option at this time.

This chapter describes some of the situations under which trading might be a feasible and cost-effective solution to meeting Section 316(b) requirements. These concepts are very new and havenot yet been practiced. There may be numerous other forms in which trading can be practiced forSection 316(b) purposes. The intent of this chapter is not to promote any exact approach fortrading but to stimulate discussion and exchange of ideas that will lead to a wider range of cost-effective solutions. As noted in Section 1.4, trading is closely related to the use of the other typesof enhancements described in this report in that all are designed to use an external mechanism tooffset an impact. Generally enhancements or trading will offer a more cost-effective solutionthan will installation of additional CWIS technologies.

The CWA does not specifically approve or prohibit effluent trading. Consequently, few trades ofwater-borne pollutants have been undertaken. In January 1996, USEPA released a policystatement endorsing effluent trading in watersheds, hoping to spur additional interest in thesubject. The policy statement outlines USEPA’s support for five types of effluent trading:

1. Point source/point source tradingtrading of pollutant allowances between two or moreindustrial dischargers or publicly owned treatment works (POTWs),

2. Pretreatment tradingtrading of pollutant allowances between indirect dischargers to aPOTW,

3. Intraplant tradingtrading among outfalls within a single facility,

4. Point source/nonpoint source tradingtrading of pollutant allowances between an industrialdischarger or a POTW and a nonpoint source of pollutants, and

5. Nonpoint source/nonpoint source tradingtrading of pollutant allowances between two ormore nonpoint sources of pollutants.

Trading Strategies

3-2

To supplement the policy statement, USEPA published a draft framework document thatprovides much more information on implementation of effluent trades (USEPA 1996).

Veil (1997, 1998) evaluated the opportunities for trading in the electric power industry and foundthat they were not great. The pollutants that would be most difficult and expensive for energycompanies to treat (and thus good candidates for trades) are primarily toxic chemicals. Becausetoxics affect not only entire watersheds, but also the areas in the immediate vicinity of thedischarge points, it may not be practical for one trading partner to operate with relaxed toxicslimits (potential for violation of water quality standards) while the other partner removes more ofthe pollutant than required. In fact, nearly all of the early trading cases described by USEPA(1996) involved trades of nutrient pollutants and not of toxics.

USEPA recognized that trading has not flourished and in 2001 began placing greater emphasison developing new trading policies. Early in 2002, USEPA circulated a new proposed waterquality trading policy, and on May 15, 2002, the policy was formally printed in the FederalRegister (67 FR 34709). The new proposed policy embraces trading as a viable mechanism forachieving water quality goals. The proposed policy acknowledges that trades other than thetraditional nutrient trades can occur on a case-by-case basis if the regulatory agencies concurwith the trades. Further, it does not limit water trades to effluents, but rather refers to waterquality trades. This should provide additional opportunities for trading to the electric powerindustry.

As further evidence of the increased emphasis placed on trading by USEPA’s Office of Water,the preamble of the April 9 proposed Section 316(b) regulations for existing power-producingfacilities contains an extensive discussion devoted to the concept of using trading as amechanism to achieve Section 316(b) compliance (pages 17170 - 17173). USEPA’s concept oftrading excess entrainment reductions between plants is a form of trading fish for fish. Thisconcept is described in the following section.

3.1 Trading Fish for Fish

Although USEPA does not make trading a part of its April 9 proposed regulatory text, theagency describes how a fish-for-fish trading program might work in the supporting preamblediscussion. USEPA notes that the costs to comply with the impingement reduction targets areprobably lower than those for meeting the entrainment reduction targets. The higher costsassociated with entrainment control suggest that trades of entrainment credits are more likely totake place than trades of impingement credits. Therefore, USEPA focuses its discussionprimarily on entrainment trading.

The concept behind a fish-for-fish trade is that one existing power producer may decide toimplement entrainment controls that provide a greater degree of entrainment reduction thanrequired by its permit. That company would trade the excess entrainment reduction to a secondpower producer that elects to purchase the entrainment credit rather than directly meet its ownentrainment reduction target. Although this sounds straightforward, trading participants mustconsider several important issues before engaging in such a trade.

Trading Strategies

3-3

The first issue is the spatial scale of the trade. To balance a loss of organisms due to a relaxedentrainment reduction target at one partner’s facility by the excess entrainment reductionprovided by the other partner’s facility, the two trading facilities should be located in nearby orat least geographically similar locations. USEPA considers three different spatial scales: withinthe same water body, within the same watershed, or within other water bodies that share similarcharacteristics. As an example of the third case, a facility located on a mid-Atlantic estuarymight be able to trade with another plant in a different mid-Atlantic estuary that entrains similarspecies, as long as the same species are widely distributed throughout both estuaries.

The second consideration is how to quantify the units and common currency of trading. In otherwords, how much of an excess in entrainment reduction is needed at one facility to balance arelaxation of entrainment at the trading partner’s facility, and how do you measure that quantity.The commodity being traded is fish or early life stages of fish. USEPA describes three differenttypes of accounting systems that consider species density, species counts, and total biomass.

Under the species density approach (USEPA’s preferred approach), the trading partners wouldestimate the number of eggs, larvae, juveniles, and small fish for all fish and shellfish speciesthat are entrained and divide by the flow rate to get entrainment per unit flow factors. Thesefactors could then be used to ensure equivalence between trading partners. USEPA includes adetailed example of how the species density calculations would be used on page 17172 of itsApril 9 proposal. The mechanism that is ultimately used to determine the equivalence of thetrade could be very labor-intensive. However, there may be alternative approaches usingdifferent, less-labor-intensive metrics that could be developed by agencies and trading partners.

3.2 Trading Pollutants for Fish

Now that USEPA has opened the door for discussion of trading in the Section 316(b) context,there may be opportunities to look beyond fish-for-fish trades. One other approach to trading isto trade a reduction in pollution loading for a relaxed entrainment or impingement allowance(i.e., a pollutants-for-fish trade). This concept is similar to the environmental enhancementconcept. A company agrees to a pollution control project that will directly benefit the same or anearby water body as part of a Section 316(b) program. Under the enhancements discussed in theprevious chapters, companies either improve or create habitat or directly increase fish stocksthrough raising and stocking target species. A pollutants-for-fish trade, while similar in result,would function somewhat differently. Rather than constructing or improving habitat or stockingfish, the company would undertake a pollution reduction project that would benefit the waterbody. By improving the water quality in that water body, presumably the new conditions wouldallow for a healthier ecological situation and larger fish populations in that water body. Thepollutants that are reduced could be associated with that company’s own operations or, morelikely, would be external.

One hypothetical example of an external pollutant reduction is a power plant situated on a riverin the Appalachian region. The river is fed by many streams coming out of historically coal-mined areas. The water quality in these streams is very poor because of acid mine drainage suchthat the water quality in the river is also impaired, and riverine fish populations are small. The

Trading Strategies

3-4

ecosystem around the plant’s location would be better served by improving the water quality inthe feeder streams than by installing additional CWIS controls. The plant could undertake a tradewith the state acid mine drainage reclamation agency to pay for restoration of a number of acresof abandoned mine lands each year in exchange for receiving relaxed CWIS requirements. Theimprovement in water quality could result in fish populations several times larger than beforerestoration.

Although the example cited above applies to cooling water intakes, a real-life project is currentlyunderway to look at possible trading opportunities between power plant thermal discharges andacid mine drainage. Allegheny Energy and EPRI are funding a study through West VirginiaUniversity that will quantify and compare the ecological benefits associated with a range ofenvironmental activities in the Cheat River basin. The goal of the study is to identify thoseenvironmental activities that will yield the greatest result to an ecosystem for a given cost. Thisis precisely what trading can offer.

Other situations that might fit into a pollutants-for-fish trade include sites that have diminishedwater quality by virtue of:

• Inadequately controlled storm-water runoff,

• Infiltration to surface waters of contaminated groundwater,

• Release of pollutants from contaminated sediments, or

• Other releases from sources that might not be otherwise controlled under existingenvironmental authorities.

The same considerations that are important in fish-for-fish trades are also important in pollutant-for-fish trades. What is the appropriate spatial or geographic scale? Because the effect ofpollutant reduction may expand productivity of a large area of aquatic habitat, it not so critical tohave the site of pollutant reduction be located very close to the site of the power plant receivingrelaxed CWIS requirements.

As discussed in the previous section, valuation of the quantities being traded and conversion ofthose valuations to a common currency are important considerations. In the context of apollutant-for-fish trade, the trading partners and regulators will need to estimate, for example,how many pounds of pollutant A must be removed to correspond to a 10% relaxation ofentrainment requirements. Measurement and verification of the pollutant removal is relativelyeasy, but determining a fair relationship between the pollutant reduction and the entrainmentrelaxation will involve negotiation between trading partners and regulators.

3.3 Other Trading Issues

Trading introduces additional issues that must be evaluated. First, why trade? This can beexamined from a cost/benefit perspective. The benefit part is easyby utilizing a trade, thecompany is able to put its limited resources to the best use. The cost part is more complicated. Inthis situation, the cost is not so much economic cost, but the loss of direct control for the partner

Trading Strategies

3-5

purchasing the credits (the buyer). Instead of constructing new facilities or modifying operatingconditions, the buyer relies on the party providing the excess allowance (the seller) toaccomplish something. If the seller fails to do the activity that is the basis of the trade, the buyerwill still experience some regulatory liability. This loss of control is important to manycompanies. When weighing the costs and benefits, the benefits may need to be quite substantialto justify the loss of control associated with the trade. This factor should not be considered as aweakness of trading but simply as a calculated risk that is inherent in any business transaction.Corporate willingness to take risks with innovative and cost-effective environmental protectionvaries widely among companies.

A trading program is likely to involve a great deal more administrative requirements andmonitoring than would a straightforward technical solution. This is particularly true at this pointin time because neither regulators nor companies have any experience with Section 316(b)trades. The first several Section 316(b) trades that take place will most likely be subject to ahigher than normal degree of scrutiny. The time and money associated with these requirementswould add to the effective cost of a trade.

The issue of how to assign responsibility for noncompliance is a significant issue for any trade,and it is not yet clearly resolved. Almost certainly, the buyer will maintain some or all of theresponsibility for complying with its permitted targets and limits. The seller may be listed in thepermit and have joint responsibility, or may not have any direct responsibility to the regulatoryagency. In the latter case, a buyer would need to seek its own legal actions against a seller if theseller failed to comply with its trading commitments.

Another issue that bears discussion is how to determine the magnitude of the credit or allowancethat a seller may trade. In a fish-for-fish trade, presumably the seller will have a permitted limitfor percent reduction of entrainment or impingement. For entrainment, the limit (according to theproposed regulations) would fall somewhere between 60 and 90% reduction over baseline. Nowassume that the seller’s permit limit is 60% and it has installed technologies that allow it toachieve 85% removal. If the seller wants to maintain a 10% margin of safety above its limit(i.e., 70%), it can then trade the remaining 15% to a buyer. This is the simplest situation. Morecomplicated situations could arise, however. Consider the situation where a plant utilizesenhancements as the major component of it Section 316(b) strategy to meet a target of 75%reduction of entrainment. The company reaches an agreement with the regulatory agency thatrestoration of 100 acres of wetlands will meet that target. If the company decides to restore200 acres or 500 acres of wetlands instead of 100 acres, it may be able to claim an excess creditbeyond the 75% target. Conceivably, the company could justify that it was achieving an effectivereduction greater than 100% reduction (because it was restoring habitat that allowed for moreorganisms in the ecosystem than would have been there naturally) and could trade a largepercentage to a buyer facility.

Another situation that could arise is a case where a plant already is using wet cooling towers.This effectively achieves greater than 90% reduction in entrainment (often greater than 95%) andprobably some improvement in impingement as well. Although the cooling towers were installedprior to the effective date of the Section 316(b) rule, the company may be able to claim that theplant exceeds the entrainment and impingement targets that it would have been assigned if it had

Trading Strategies

3-6

operated using once-through cooling, and therefore seeks to trade the excess between itshypothetical target (maximum of 90% entrainment reduction) and its actual 90+% reductiontarget.

These latter two examples illustrate some of the complicated circumstances that could beassociated with proposed fish-for-fish trades. Other circumstances relating to pollutant-for-fishtrades can be envisioned also. Before trades can be utilized, it will be necessary for regulatoryagencies to agree that trading can be part of a Section 316(b) program and then adopt policies,guidance, or regulations that implement trading.

4-1

4 IDENTIFICATION, SELECTION, AND SCALING OFENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS

4.1 Introduction

In previous chapters, particularly Chapter 2, a variety of environmental enhancement strategieswere presented that could be used to mitigate impingement and entrainment impacts of CWISs.While the science of environmental enhancement to mitigate these CWIS operational impacts isrelatively new and undergoing rapid development, environmental enhancements can be feasiblealternatives to changes in plant design or operations. Environmental enhancements have beenwidely used by numerous federal, state, and non-governmental organizations to restore orenhance natural resources in a variety of environmental and regulatory contexts (e.g., Superfund,natural areas management, habitat conservation). This chapter discusses issues, approaches, andmethods for selecting and scaling enhancement projects to adequately mitigate for CWIS impactswhile satisfying regulatory requirements and stakeholder concerns. Scaling refers to the processof determining, for a particular restoration action, the amount of the action required tocompensate for the resource injury.

Selection of the type and size of an enhancement approach (or combination of approaches) tomitigate CWIS operational impacts must consider a number of factors, including (but not limitedto):

• Nature of the CWIS impacts;

• Mitigation objectives (e.g., the target species or resources);

• Level of scientific understanding of how well a particular enhancement approach may meetthe mitigation objectives;

• Possible technological and/or operational solutions;

• Technical and practical feasibility of the mitigation strategy; and

• Costs and benefits of the mitigation.

Interactions, discussions, and negotiations among the energy company and appropriatestakeholders may be needed to address each of these factors.

Identification, Selection, And Scaling Of Environmental Enhancement Projects

4-2

4.1.1 USEPA Section 316(b) Proposed Rule

The USEPA is scheduled to finalize its proposed revision of the Section 316(b) regulation forexisting CWISs withdrawing more than 50 MGD (i.e., Phase II Rule) by February 16, 2004.Under the proposed USEPA rule, a facility may choose one of three options for meeting “besttechnology available” (BTA) requirements for achieving the proposed impingement mortalityreduction (80-95%) and [when applicable1] entrainment reduction (60-90%) performancestandards for a CWIS. To comply with the proposed Section 316(b) regulations, a facility must:

• Demonstrate that it currently meets the specified performance standards;

• Select and implement design and construction technologies, operational measures, orrestoration measures that meet specified performance standards; or

• Demonstrate that it qualifies for a site-specific BTA determination because the costs ofcompliance are either significantly greater than the costs that were considered by USEPAduring development of the revised regulation, or the costs of compliance would besignificantly greater than any environmental benefits that would be gained throughcompliance with the impingement and entrainment performance standards.

Thus, restoration is an option available to facilities on a voluntary basis to use alone or incombination with other technological measures to meet performance standards or in establishingBTA on a site-specific basis (USEPA 2002c).

Should a facility choose to employ restoration measures, the facility must demonstrate to thepermitting agency that the restoration efforts will maintain the fish and shellfish (includingcommunity structure and function) in the water body at “a comparable” or “substantially similarlevel to” that which would be achieved by meeting the impingement mortality and, whenapplicable, entrainment reduction requirements (USEPA 2002c). This demonstration involvesdocumentation in restoration planning and post-project implementation monitoring.

The USEPA’s proposal strongly encourages facilities intending to pursue a restoration approachto consult with federal, state, and tribal fish and wildlife management agencies that haveresponsibilities for aquatic species potentially affected by a facility’s cooling water intakestructure (USEPA 2002c). Such consultation will:

• Identify the “species of concern;”

1 The USEPA’s proposal (USEPA 2002) requires an 80 to 95% reduction in impingement mortality by all Phase II

power plants. Power plants on the Great Lakes, estuaries, tidal rivers, and oceans and whose capacity factorexceeds 15% must reduce entrainment by 60 to 90%. Power plants on rivers whose cooling water withdrawalexceeds 5% of the river’s mean annual flow must also reduce entrainment by 60 to 90%. An exception to theseperformance standards, however, can be made for a site-specific determination of BTA as described herein(i.e., via the cost-cost or cost-benefit test).


4-3

• Identify the current status of species of concern located within the subject water body andprovide life history information for those species, such as preferred habitats for all life stages;and

• Identify potential threats other than the CWIS to species of concern found within the waterbody (i.e., identify all additional stressors for the species of concern), appropriate restorationmethods, and monitoring requirements to assess the overall effectiveness of the proposedrestoration projects.

The USEPA stresses the importance of consultation because the agency believes that naturalresource management agencies typically have the most accurate information available and thusare most knowledgeable about the status of the aquatic resource they manage.

The USEPA, as part of a Notice of Data Availability released in early 2003 (USEPA 2003),further clarified the benefits of restoration as a mitigation approach and requested comment onadditional practices it may require. Specifically, USEPA is considering requiring the followingpractices during the development of restoration projects:

• Documentation of the sources and magnitude of uncertainty in expected restoration projectperformance;

• Creation and implementation of an adaptive management plan; and

• Independent peer review to evaluate restoration proposals.

Documentation of sources and magnitude of uncertainty and adaptive management are describedin greater detail in Sections 4.2.4.5 and 4.4, respectively.

The USEPA believes that independent peer review addresses a major challenge to successfulrestoration, namely the coordination of information from a large number of scientific disciplines,particularly hydrology, landscape ecology, and aquatic biology. The USEPA believes thorough,multidisciplinary review of restoration proposals would help ensure their quality and, therefore,maximize the probability of project success. The USEPA is concerned, however, that thoroughreview of restoration proposals may place a significant additional burden on the reviewcapacities of permit writers, the majority of whom are trained in the engineering sciences. To aidpermit writers in their review of restoration proposals and to aid permittees in ensuring that thefull range of pertinent expertise is brought to bear upon project plans, the USEPA is consideringrequiring that each facility restoration plan undergo an independent peer review prior to theplan’s submission to the permit director. The USEPA is considering, and invites comment on,whether a facility should be required to choose the members of the peer review panel inconsultation with federal, state, and tribal fish and wildlife management agencies withresponsibility for the affected resources. The USEPA expects that the peer reviewers would bescientists who are otherwise independent of the permitting process for the facility and who, as apanel, have the appropriate multi-disciplinary expertise for the review of the restoration proposal.Peer reviewers would be charged with evaluating specific elements of each restoration proposal,


4-4

such as descriptions of the uncertainty associated with restoration goals and projected outcomes,delays between project initiation and when a restoration program shows measurable success, andthe nexus between impingement and entrainment losses and the ecological benefits of theproposed restoration program (USEPA 2003).

4.1.2 Effectiveness of Enhancement Alternatives for Addressing CWIS Impacts

The environmental enhancements discussed in this report are widely used to restore or enhancenatural resources. The effectiveness, advantages, limitations, and applicability of theseenhancements for offsetting CWIS operational impacts are discussed in Chapter 2. Whileenvironmental enhancements have the capability to mitigate CWIS losses, it may not always bepossible or desirable to mitigate impacts to a specific affected resource because of site-specificfactors. In some cases, the enhancement may target species or age classes that differ from thoseincurring CWIS losses. In some cases, efforts to provide species-for-species mitigation may notbe desirable, particularly if the affected species:

• Are nuisance or exotic species;

• Became established from past fishery management programs, but are no longer of interest ormanagement focus; or

• Are common, widespread, abundant, or unimpaired and would derive little or no benefit fromenvironmental enhancements.

Thus, acceptable environmental enhancements may not necessarily provide a species-for-speciesor life-stage-for-life-stage match when mitigating for CWIS impacts. Acceptable enhancementsmay be more broadly based, or more narrowly focused, than the CWIS impacts they are designedto offset.

For example, environmental enhancements may provide additional environmental benefits (e.g.,flood control, habitat for other wildlife, pollution reduction, and recreation) that would not beprovided by technological and operational measures focused solely on reducing CWIS impacts.Conversely, some enhancement approaches, such as stocking and fish passage restoration, mayprovide benefits for fewer species and life stages than other approaches such as habitat creationand restoration. An additional consideration is the period of time over which an enhancementwill yield ecological benefits. While there may be a greater time lag for benefits ofenvironmental enhancements compared with technological measures, the benefits may continueto accrue well after power plant operations have ceased (USEPA 2002c). For example, PSEG’swetlands restoration program and fish ladders are expected to continue providing environmentalbenefits even after the useful life of the plant has expired (Patterson 2001).

Environmental enhancements may also provide the requisite mitigation for CWIS losses, but at alower economic cost than a technological mitigation approach. Thus, the potential to adequatelymitigate impingement and entrainment losses and provide long-term environmental benefits,


4-5

possibly at a lower cost, makes environmental enhancements a particularly attractive option foraddressing CWIS operational impacts.

4.2 Framework for Selecting and Scaling Restoration Projects

A number of factors should be considered when evaluating and comparing alternative restorationprojects and environmental enhancements. These factors (Pastorok and MacDonald 1996)include:

• Expected effects on target and non-target species;

• Potential for other environmental benefits, such as water quality improvements, floodcontrol, and recreation;

• History of success or failure of similar enhancement efforts in the vicinity (e.g., fish stockingat other locations);

• Technical feasibility of the enhancements;

• Implementation, operation, maintenance, and monitoring costs;

• Projected time lag until specific enhancement goals are attained;

• Influence of other local activities on both the short-term and long-term enhancement success;and

• Regulator and stakeholder acceptance.

Numerous natural resource agencies use habitat restoration to mitigate environmental impacts,and some agencies have developed processes to facilitate their planning and evaluation ofenhancement projects (USACE 1996, NOAA 1997). Common elements of these processesinclude:

• Identification of the injured natural resources;

• Identification of the restoration objectives;

• Identification of key ecological parameters to be manipulated or monitored;

• Identification of potentially applicable restoration alternatives;

• Evaluation of the type, quality, and value of natural resources and services provided by eachrestoration alternative relative to the impacted natural resource;

• Evaluation of project feasibility, cost, and environmental impacts; and


4-6

• Selection of approaches and methods to scale the restoration project to restore and/or replaceinjured natural resources.

Ultimately, the selection of an appropriate restoration project needs to be made on a case-by-casebasis by using a combination of scientific information and best professional judgment, and willbe based largely on the nature, extent, and magnitude of impingement and entrainment impactsoccurring at the particular facility. The development of restoration projects should also considerpotential population- and ecosystem-level impacts and losses of threatened and endangered,recreational, or commercially important species (Duke Energy 2002).

The selection and scaling of restoration projects to mitigate for CWIS impacts may be facilitatedthrough the application of a framework similar to that employed by natural resource agenciesthat typically conduct environmental enhancement and restoration projects. For CWIS-relatedrestoration projects, the following four-step framework may be useful:

1. Establish the baseline;

2. Consider technological and operational alternatives;

3. Select the restoration approach; and

4. Scale the restoration project appropriately.

This framework, described in more detail below, includes considerations of mitigation goals,technical feasibility, stakeholder involvement, ecological and technical practicality, and a varietyof other factors identified above that are important to the defensible selection and scaling of anenvironmental enhancement program.

4.2.1 Establishing the Baseline

Establishing the baseline serves to identify the species and life stages affected by impingementand entrainment and, in turn, serves to focus the development of restoration projects. Baselineinformation is important for determining whether it is necessary, appropriate, or even possible todirectly mitigate losses to target species and life stages impacted by CWIS. Baseline informationmay also aid in determining if opportunities exist to obtain equivalent or greater environmentalbenefits by selecting an enhancement project that targets a specific life stage, an alternatespecies, or a completely different environmental resource. This step may also serve to establishthe basis for the scaling of environmental enhancement projects.

The proposed rule (USEPA 2002) identifies a calculation baseline to be used as an estimate ofimpingement mortality and entrainment in the absence of impingement and entrainment controls.The calculation baseline is the basis from which to quantify all means of reducing impacts ofimpingement and entrainment, including intake location, flow reductions, screen improvements,and restoration. Since some means of reducing impacts may already be in place, the calculationbaseline may require back-calculation of what impingement and entrainment impacts would be


4-7

without these reductions so that credit can be assigned for existing mitigation. The calculationbaseline is defined as the impingement and entrainment that would occur at a site assuming (1) aonce-through cooling-water system, (2) a shoreline intake with standard screening technology(i.e., trash racks with 3/8-inch mesh traveling screens), and (3) similar practices and proceduresto those that the facility would maintain in the absence of operational controls. The calculationbaseline is thus intended by USEPA to establish a site-specific, baseline level of impingementmortality and entrainment under a partially standardized set of structural and operationalconditions. Required reductions in impingement mortality and entrainment are then establishedrelative to that baseline.

Instead of reducing impingement and entrainment, environmental enhancements would providemitigation by increasing production of affected resources through the creation or improvement ofenvironmental conditions or by stocking. Because of this difference, the calculation baselineidentified by the USEPA (2002) is only one component of the baseline information needed todevelop environmental enhancements. Components of the baseline for environmentalenhancements include characterization of aquatic resources in the vicinity of the CWIS (throughcompilation of existing data or sampling) and the determination of impingement and entrainmentlosses. In some cases it may also be appropriate to include consideration of entrainment survivaland calculate equivalent adult losses and/or foregone production.

Enhancement efforts usually rely upon providing or improving conditions to enhance theproduction of fish and/or invertebrates. As a consequence, the baseline should identify theresources that may be affected by environmental enhancements by including an evaluation of thestatus (e.g., numbers and life stages) of the aquatic biota that reside in or utilize the water bodyaffected by the CWIS. This information will assist in the development of enhancementsappropriate for the species and life stages in the affected watershed. As in the calculationbaseline described above, the numbers of individuals, species, and life stages that are beingimpinged and/or entrained by CWIS operations need to be estimated so that enhancementprojects can be scaled to compensate for the impacts to aquatic resources. Because entrainedeggs and larvae may not incur 100% mortality, it may also be appropriate to considerentrainment survival in the determination of the baseline.

In some cases the environmental enhancement being considered will be unable to directlyreplace the species or life stages that are affected by CWIS operations. In such cases, thecalculation of equivalent adult losses and/or foregone production may be appropriate forestimating how production (or stocking) of alternate life stages or increased food productionaffect adult population levels and overall productivity. The benefit expected from anenvironmental enhancement can then be compared with impingement and entrainment losses byusing a common metric. Descriptions of equivalent adult loss and foregone productionestimation are provided in Section 4.2.4.3.

In summary, the calculation baseline specified by USEPA (2002) in the proposed rule identifiesthe numbers and types of organisms that are being impinged and entrained by CWIS operations.If environmental enhancement projects are being considered as a means for addressing CWISimpacts, the calculation baseline needs to be augmented with information about the current statusof aquatic resources in the watershed and, possibly, estimates of entrainment survival and the


4-8

equivalent loss of adults or foregone production. By comparing estimated CWIS losses (asequivalent adults and/or production foregone) to comparable measures of benefits (e.g.,increased fish production) from environmental enhancements, enhancement alternatives andenhancement levels can be formulated. This process provides a quantitative basis for evaluatingenhancement alternatives and scaling the selected alternative to adequately mitigate forimpingement and entrainment losses. EPRI is currently preparing guidance on how to determinethe calculation baseline and how to conduct impingement and entrainment monitoring. EPRIrecently completed a review of entrainment and impingement survival studies (EPRI 2000 and2003, respectively) and is in the process of developing guidance for conducting entrainmentsurvival monitoring. Detailed guidance for calculating equivalent adult losses and productionforegone is also being developed by EPRI.

4.2.2 Consideration of BTA Alternatives

The USEPA and case law interpreting Section 316(b) have long interpreted this statute to requireconsideration of both technological and economic feasibility, as well as impacts not related towater quality, of alternative technologies in determining the applicability of a given technologyfor mitigating impingement and entrainment impacts. Technological alternatives whose costs are“wholly disproportionate” to the environmental benefits to be gained or whose non-water-quality-related impacts cannot adequately be addressed are considered “infeasible” or “notavailable” and, thus, do not qualify as BTA (USEPA 2002c). For example, regulators acceptedthe determination that the estimated $93-$124 million costs of cooling water alternatives atNortheast Utilities’ Millstone Nuclear Power Station to benefit winter flounder wereunwarranted considering the relatively small benefit that the species would have realized(ORNL 1999).

In such situations, the USEPA has allowed facility operators to satisfy BTA requirements byimplementing habitat restoration programs to compensate for impingement and entrainmentlosses (Patterson 2001, Duke Energy 2002). The use of environmental enhancements in lieu oftechnological changes in facility design or operations is voluntary, and BTA determinations willbe site specific. For example, the costs of retrofitting the Crystal River Power Plant with aclosed-cycle cooling system were determined to be disproportionate to the environmentalbenefits to be gained. As a result, the USEPA accepted the applicant’s proposal to construct afish hatchery as mitigation (Patterson 2001).

While the benefits from a technology change (e.g., change from once-through to closed-cyclecooling systems) are only realized over the life cycle of the modernized plant, the benefits ofhabitat enhancements can be realized beyond the expected life of the facility, and may benefitother species and the entire watershed (e.g., flood control, pollution reduction, and improvedrecreation). Thus, in some cases, plant upgrades may provide less of an environmental benefitand cost more than an environmental enhancement alternative (California Regional WaterControl Board 2003). For example, PSEG’s wetlands restoration program and fish ladders(which were voluntarily proposed by PSEG) are expected to continue to provide benefits to fishand wildlife even after the useful life of the Salem Generating Station has expired (Patterson2001).


4-9

Technological and/or operational changes can also be used in combination with environmentalenhancements where enhancements, technology, or operational changes alone would not reduceCWIS operational impacts to acceptable levels. For example, at the Chalk Point GeneratingPlant on the Chesapeake Bay estuary, barrier nets were used to reduce impingement losses, whilea fishery enhancement program was used to mitigate entrainment losses because neitherapproach would individually address all impacts (Bailey et al. 2000). Duke Energy’s HabitatEnhancement Program (HEP) for the Morro Bay Power Plant in California includes theidentification, analysis, and funding of habitat enhancement projects in Morro Bay and theupland watersheds of Los Osos and Chorro Creeks, as well as new power plant design featuresand cooling system flow restrictions (Duke Energy 2002).

The proposed Section 316(b) regulations would also allow existing facilities to take credit forpreviously installed technologies that reduce impingement and entrainment (USEPA 2002c).Taking such credit could alter the baseline condition (Section 4.2.1) and affect the amount ortype of environmental enhancement that may be needed to mitigate CWIS losses. Thus, a lesscostly restoration project might be implemented to make up the difference between what isachieved by previously deployed technology and the performance standard.

Thus, the relative cost, feasibility, and environmental benefits of using alternative technologiesor operational measures must be considered when determining how to address impingement andentrainment impacts of CWIS operation. EPRI (1999, 2000) has prepared reviews oftechnologies and the BTA selection process and is currently updating those reviews to includedetailed information on the costs associated with retrofitting technologies. This update isexpected to be available in 2004.

4.2.3 Selecting the Restoration Approach

Selection of the appropriate restoration approach should be viewed as a project scoping andplanning activity. Most of the environmental enhancement alternatives discussed in this reportmay provide CWIS impact mitigation by restoring or creating habitats in order to increasegrowth, survival, or reproduction of aquatic biota and thus indirectly offset impingement andentrainment losses (see Chapter 2). This contrasts to direct replacement of impinged or entrainedbiota through stocking. The suitability of any particular environmental enhancement for arestoration project will be a function of the water body type, water quality, local geomorphology,and local fishery management objectives. In some cases, a single cost-effective restorationmeasure may be readily identified on the basis of fishery or water-body-specific issues. In othercases, a number of alternatives or combinations of alternatives may seem appropriate and thusrequire evaluation. In addition, as previously discussed, a combination of environmentalenhancements and technological and/or operational plant modifications may be consideredapplicable for mitigating impingement and entrainment impacts of CWIS operation.


4-10

Factors to be considered when evaluating and selecting among alternative restoration projectsinclude the following:

• Types of biota (recreationally or commercially important, threatened or endangered, native orexotic, etc.) that will be benefited;

• Ability of the enhancement approach to benefit specific biota, and the likely response oftarget and non-target biota to the enhancement;

• Likelihood of success;

• Status (common, rare, abundant, affected by non-power-plant anthropogenic impacts) oftarget and non-target species and habitats in the area that would be affected by theenhancement;

• Availability of suitable areas at which to implement a specific enhancement approach;

• Evaluation and quantification methods for translating impingement and entrainment impactlevels to a compensatory level of environmental enhancement, and the uncertaintiesassociated with these methods;

• Technical feasibility and cost; and

• Regulatory and public acceptance.

Despite a substantial body of information addressing wetland mitigation and restoration,restoration of aquatic systems such as estuaries continues to be complex and evolving (USEPA2002c). Thus, many enhancement projects should be partly viewed as experiments with built-inmonitoring and research designed to advance understanding and improve the quality of futurerestoration activities, the predictability of restoration outcomes (Goodwin et al. 2001), andfunding for research and monitoring should be considered as part of any restoration project(RAE-ERF 1999). Ultimately, the selection of enhancement approaches will involveconsultation with federal and state resource agencies and possibly other appropriate stakeholderstogether with consideration of the mitigation objectives and ways in which various enhancementalternatives may be combined to meet those objectives.

The outcome of this step should be a clear identification of the mitigation objectives of therestoration program, identification of the enhancement targets (the species, habitats, waterquality, or other areas of focus), and an explicit rationale for selecting those objectives andtargets. Consultations may also help ensure that the project receives necessary approvals and thatissues of concern to stakeholders are identified and resolved early in the planning process so thatconflicts can be avoided later in the process.


4-11

4.2.3.1 Consultation

Consultations and negotiations among the facility, regulators, and other stakeholders areimportant components in the determination of the restoration and enhancement objectives andapproaches. Consultations may also help ensure that a project receives necessary approvals andthat issues of concern to stakeholders are identified and resolved early in the planning process sothat later conflicts can be avoided. Natural resource agencies and organizations with whichconsultations may be appropriate include:

• Federal agencies (e.g., USFWS, NMFS, NOAA, and USACE);

• State and regional commissions (e.g., ASMFC, California Coastal Commission, PotomacRiver Fishery Commission);

• State fish and wildlife departments;

• Fishing clubs or other local sportsman associations (e.g., Ducks Unlimited);

• Local watershed organizations formed to address water quality issues; and

• Environmental organizations (e.g., The Nature Conservancy, Isaac Walton League).

For example, in developing its Estuary Enhancement Program in Delaware Bay, PSEG workedwith members of the scientific community as well as a variety of governmental agencies. Anadvisory committee was formed to assist in project development and implementation. Thecommittee included scientists with expertise in aquatic ecology and wetland restoration that wereaffiliated with universities and research centers (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, StevensInstitute of Technology, and Louisiana State University’s Coastal Ecology Institute), as well asfederal agencies (USFWS, USACE, USGS, and NMFS) (PSE&G 1996a-c, Weinstein et al.2001). The committee also included representatives from federal, state, regional, and localregulatory agencies, such as the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)and the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Extensivenegotiations with these and other stakeholders resulted in development of PSEG’s EstuaryEnhancement Program, directed toward the restoration, enhancement, and preservation of morethan 10,000 acres of salt marsh and adjacent uplands. Participants in PSEG’s EstuaryEnhancement Program have also included independent scientists, environmental groups,community leaders, public officials, watermen, sportsmen and other stakeholders (PSE&G1996c).

The development of the Habitat Enhancement Program (HEP) by Duke Energy (2002) for itsMorro Bay Power Plant is another example of effective consultation. The principal objectives ofthis program are to improve the overall quality and quantity of certain aquatic habitats in MorroBay, reduce sediment transport to the bay, and complement ongoing programs for bay protectionand enhancement being carried out by other agencies and organizations (e.g., CaliforniaRegional Water Quality Control Board [CRWQCB], the National Estuary Program, USACE)


4-12

(Duke Energy 2002). In cooperation with the CRWQCB, the HEP was developed to includeprojects to restore or enhance in-bay habitat and to preserve habitat through watershedmanagement efforts. The National Estuary Program had identified sedimentation as the primaryecological stressor affecting Morro Bay (Duke Energy 2002). Although the power plant does notcontribute to sediment buildup in the bay, the mitigation program includes habitat enhancementprojects to restore coastal salt marsh through removal of accumulated sediment and to preserveexisting habitat through watershed management activities that reduce in-bay sedimentation.Thus, local regulators saw the HEP as an effective entrainment mitigation alternative because thereduced sediment loading would result in significant benefits to the fish and invertebratepopulations affected by entrainment by preserving habitat critically important to those species(California Regional Water Control Board 2003). In addition to offsetting entrainment effects,the HEP is expected to enhance the overall quality and quantity of habitats in the estuary (DukeEnergy 2002).

One goal of consultations is to identify the current status of species of concern located within thesubject water body and to provide life history information for those species and life stages(USEPA 2002c). Consultation topics may include potential threats to species of concern withinthe water body, restoration methods, and monitoring requirements to assess the overalleffectiveness of proposed restoration projects. Natural resource management agencies oftenhave the most accurate information available and are most knowledgeable about the status of thewatershed and aquatic resources potentially affected by CWIS operations (USEPA 2002c).

While restoration project planning should focus on scientific and technical issues, communityperspectives and values should not be overlooked. If involved in the restoration process, publicand private organizations that may be affected by the enhancement project can help build thesupport needed to get the project moving and ensure long-term protection of the restored area. Inaddition, partnership with stakeholders can add useful resources, ranging from supplemental orcollaborative funding and technical expertise to volunteer help with implementation andmonitoring (see Section 2.6). Cooperation between energy companies, regulators, naturalresource agencies, conservation organizations, and the concerned public can lead to managementagreements, mitigation projects, conflict-avoidance programs, program support, and volunteerprograms while enhancing project progress (Sawhill 1996). In addition, coordination mayidentify opportunities for coordinating and/or partnering the restoration project with otherexisting protection and enhancement programs that may be occurring in the same watershed(Duke Energy 2002). Furthermore, such programs may provide valuable information regardinglessons learned and species and watershed responses and may provide opportunities to partnerwith these other programs. Thus, at many levels consultation can bring significant benefits.

4.2.3.2 Identifying Restoration Objectives and Suitable Enhancement Approaches

Restoration objectives may be site-specific and target only those species directly affected byimpingement and entrainment, they may target species indirectly or not at all affected by CWISoperations, or they may focus on water quality, habitats, or even entire watersheds. Theidentification of restoration objectives will be affected by a variety of considerations, includingcurrent environmental conditions, the types and numbers of species affected by impingement or


4-13

entrainment, cost, the target species or target ecological services expected to benefit from theenhancement project, the availability of suitable sites for implementing enhancement approaches,and potential for enhancements to benefit resources not affected directly by CWIS operations. Inaddition, the identification of restoration objectives may be strongly influenced by discussionsand negotiations with regulators, resource agencies, the public, and other appropriatestakeholders.

Development of restoration objectives that directly or indirectly target species incurring CWISoperational losses will require an understanding of the ecological requirements of the targetedspecies, as well as an understanding of the ecosystems that support them. For example, themarsh restoration goals of the restoration program developed for mitigating impingement andentrainment impacts at the PSEG Salem Generating Station were based upon the understandingthat the primary production of salt marshes directly affected secondary production of estuarineand marine species (Weinstein et al. 2001).

Prior scientific research provided information on the ecology and natural history of the species ofconcern, as well as of consumer organisms in the Delaware Estuary food web (NJDEP 2000,Weinstein et al. 2001). Tidal salt marsh wetlands in the estuary provide foraging, refuge, andnursery habitats for early life stages and juveniles of these species and provide food resources tothese and other species throughout the estuary. Published scientific literature indicated that tidalsalt marshes that supported communities of native plant species were important to theproductivity of Delaware Bay fish. One species, Spartina alterniflora, was found to beparticularly important in creating the physical structure for fish habitat, as well as production oflive plant material and detritus for forage within the marsh. Export of Spartina alternifloradetrital biomass to Delaware Bay had also been shown to be an important source of energy to thebay ecosystem and to support fish production in the bay (Weinstein et al. 2001).

4.2.3.3 Combining Alternative Enhancement Approaches

In some cases, acceptable mitigation of CWIS environmental impacts may be achieved through acombination of environmental enhancement approaches rather than implementation of any singleapproach. Factors affecting the use of enhancement combinations may include cost differencesbetween small- and large-scale enhancements; expected levels of success of differentenhancement approaches within the watershed of interest; the availability of appropriate areas forimplementing individual enhancement options; and the resources of most concern to regulators,natural resource agencies, the public, and other potential stakeholders. For example, sufficientlocations for wetland creation/restoration may not be available to produce the necessary level ofimpingement and entrainment mitigation. However, the proximity of a small dam could allowfor the restoration of fish passage that together with a smaller wetland restoration could result infish productivity levels that provide acceptable mitigation.

As an example of combining different environmental enhancements, PSEG implemented acombination of fish passage restoration, wetland restoration, and stocking to increase fishproduction and compensate for CWIS operational losses at its Salem Generating Station. TheEstuary Enhancement Program was designed to provide long-term benefits to the Delaware


4-14

Estuary by increasing the production of fish and other aquatic biota through expansion andprotection of habitat for spawning, foraging, and growth. In addition to wetlands restoration andenhancement activities, the program also included the construction of eight fish ladders for riverherring migration that opened access to 100 miles of river and 700 acres of spawning habitat.PSEG is working with NJDEP to select appropriate sites for two additional fish ladders fromamong a number of sites recommended by the USFWS. In order to expedite the return of riverherring to spawning and nursery areas above the new fish ladders, PSEG transported andreleased ripe river herring above the dams. This procedure will continue until a target number offish per acre pass through the fish ladders.

A combination of enhancement approaches, technological applications, and funding support isbeing used to support required mitigation for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station(SONGS) in Southern California. The SONGS mitigation program includes restoration orcreation of at least 150 acres of wetlands, installation of fish barrier devices at the CWIS, andconstruction of a 300-acre kelp reef (to compensate for thermal discharge impacts underSection 316[a]) (Ambrose 1994a, Johnson et al. 1994, Deysher et al. 2002). In addition, SONGSis providing funds for scientific and support staff to oversee site assessments, project design andimplementation, and monitoring, and to partially pay for construction of an experimental whitesea bass hatchery (Duke Energy 2002).

Required mitigation by Mirant for their Delta Contra Costa and Pittsburgh plants in Californiaincludes the restoration of tidal flow by creating openings in dikes along the Sacramento Riverand the creation of three sloughs to increase three tidal marsh zones, along with a variety ofaquatic and terrestrial conservation activities for selected species at the MontezumaEnhancement Site (Duke Energy 2002).

4.2.3.4 Enhancing Species Not Incurring CWIS Operational Impacts

In some cases, the target of an environmental enhancement project may differ from the biotaincurring the impingement and entrainment impacts of CWIS operation. As discussed earlier, ifthe impacted species are considered to be of little value (e.g., exotic fish), are not expected tobenefit from mitigation, or are of less interest to regulators and other stakeholders, anenhancement alternative may be selected that benefits different species, such as state or federallyprotected species, commercially important fishes, or forage species that are important prey formore valuable fishes.

For example, the striped bass, shad, and yellow perch hatchery and stocking programs associatedwith entrainment compensation for the PEPCO Chalk Point facility did not address the primaryspecies incurring CWIS impacts, but benefited species that have been historically impacted byoverfishing and water quality degradation (Willenborg 1999). Other components of the requiredentrainment compensation included $100,000 yearly funding for environmental education andprojects to remove obstructions to anadromous fish migration. These activities targeted speciesnot directly impacted by impingement and entrainment at the facility.


4-15

Another example of mitigating CWIS environmental impacts by targeting non-impacted speciesis also provided by the PSEG Salem Generating Station program. Although river herring(alewife and blueback herring) were not identified as species impacted by CWIS operations,these species were found to be important forage for some of the species that did incur losses atthe generating station (NJDEP 2000). Restoration of fish passage to tributary streams ofDelaware Bay resulted in an increase in the productivity of river herring, which in turn wasexpected to provide a benefit to the species of interest, as well as to other commercially andrecreationally important fish species.

An example of mitigating entrainment losses by targeting a water quality parameter can be foundin the Habitat Enhancement Program for the Morro Bay Power Plant. To mitigate for entrain-ment losses, the program attempts to reduce sediment transport to Morro Bay, even though theplant is not a source of sediment loading to the bay (Duke Energy 2002). This objective will beaddressed through the removal of accumulated sediment in coastal salt marsh habitats andimplementation of watershed management activities (e.g., vegetated riparian buffers, sedimenttraps, stream channel restoration) to reduce in-bay sedimentation.

4.2.4 Scaling the Restoration Project

Once a restoration project has been identified, it must be appropriately scaled to meet themitigation goals. Scaling refers to the determination of the quantity of the environmentalenhancement needed to restore or replace the resources impacted by CWIS operations.

NOAA (1997) identifies a resource-to-resource approach for determining the amount of aresource that must be provided in order to replace or restore the resource that was lost orimpacted; it implies a one-to-one relationship between the impacted and restored resource.While this one-to-one assumption may be appropriate for stocking, it is not applicable for theother environmental enhancement options addressed in this report (see Chapter 2).

Most of the environmental enhancement alternatives discussed herein provide mitigation not bydirect replacement of biota but rather by providing new or restored habitat to increase productionof aquatic biota and thereby offset impingement and entrainment losses. The underlyingassumption of such an approach is that compensation for impacted natural resources can beprovided by enhancement projects that provide comparable replacement of resources.

A number of issues must be considered when scaling an enhancement project. These issuesinclude:

• Current environmental conditions in the watershed,

• Restoration goals, including target species or resources,

• Knowledge of ecosystem productivity in the project area,


4-16

• Availability of metrics for relating CWIS losses to expected enhancement-related gains inproductivity levels,

• Use of multiple metrics,

• Adjusting the project scale to address uncertainty associated with predicted enhancementsuccess,

• Natural, temporal variability in ecological conditions,

• Monitoring requirements, including development of resource-specific success criteria, and

• Time lags between implementation and biological response.

Scaling is more difficult when multiple species are involved, when common metrics are notreadily available, when the target species differ from those incurring impacts, and/or when themitigation goals target resources other than those incurring impacts. In most cases, the greatestcomplexity associated with scaling is associated with quantifying the increment in biologicalproductivity expected from a given change in the physical habitat. For example, a variety ofapproaches have been used to quantify fish productivity per unit of wetland. However, eachemploys different assumptions regarding nutrient flow, energy production, trophic relationships,and fish production.

4.2.4.1 Scaling Restoration Projects Using Habitat Equivalency Analysis

Habitat equivalency analysis (HEA) is an analytical method developed by NOAA to quantifynatural resource and service reductions associated with oil spills and to scale the amount ofrestoration needed to compensate the public for those natural resource losses (NOAA 1997,2000, Peacock 2001, Penn and Tomasi 2002, Strange et al. 2002). The term services refers to theecological functions that can address impacts to biota, such as providing spawning, nursery, andforaging habitats. HEA is widely used by numerous state and federal resource agencies to scalerestoration projects in a variety of regulatory contexts (such as the Oil Pollution Act, CERCLA,and the Park System Resource Protection Act). The advantages of using HEA over traditionaleconomic valuation approaches is that, under HEA, losses and gains of natural resources areestimated using ecologically based metrics rather than assigning monetary values to the lossesand gains (Duke Energy 2002). In addition, HEA can reflect ecological variability andcomplexity when evaluating restoration or enhancement projects (Strange et al. 2002).

The underlying assumption in HEA is that compensation for impacted natural resources and theirservices can be provided by restoration projects that yield comparable replacement of resourcesand services (NOAA 2000, Peacock 2001). Thus, it is an approach to scaling that can be appliedwhen the impacted and mitigated resources are not of comparable value (e.g., impinged fish vs.restoration of fish passage), as long as there is a resource or metric common to both the impactedand mitigated resources. It should be noted, however, that while impingement and entrainmentdirectly affect some species, they do not degrade or destroy habitat.


4-17

As part of its Habitat Enhancement Program, Duke Energy Morro Bay LLC employed HEAanalysis to scale eelgrass and salt marsh creation (in acres) to mitigate for fish and crab biomass(in kilograms) entrained at its Morro Bay Power Plant (Duke Energy 2002). This HEA analysisrequired (1) estimation of biomass entrained over the life of the power plant, (2) estimation ofeelgrass and marsh productivity in the bay on which the power plant is located, (3) conversion ofeelgrass and marsh productivity to fish and crab biomass produced per acre per year, and(4) estimation of the total fish and crab biomass generated over the lifespan of the power plant.This information was then used to estimate acres of habitat that would be needed to compensatefor the crab and fish losses.

4.2.4.2 Species Considerations for Scaling

Different species will exhibit different production levels in similar habitats. Thus, it is importantto consider the relative production by various fish species in particular habitat types. Whenmultiple target species can be produced within a particular habitat type, it may be mostappropriate to scale the restoration effort on the basis of the species with the lowest level ofproduction. For example, PSEG’s 1994 NJPDES permit stated that just under 7,500 acres shouldbe restored to increase fish productivity to a level that equals the fish estimated to be destroyedby the CWIS. The species of concern were bay anchovy, white perch, spot, and weakfish. Thefinal restoration area was based primarily on mortality estimates for the bay anchovy, whichresulted in the highest acreage determination. Because the acreage needed for the variousspecies were not considered additive, the largest amount of acreage required for any givenspecies was considered to be protective of all the target species and was selected as the scale forthe wetlands project. In fact, it was estimated that production of other species would exceed thelevel of fish lost to impingement and entrainment (Patterson 2001).

4.2.4.3 Scaling Metrics

The key to scaling is the use of a common metric that relates the benefits of the restorationproject (i.e., the environmental enhancement) to the CWIS operational impacts. The use of acommon metric not only provides for a defensible means of scaling, but also provides support forthe use of that particular enhancement for mitigating impacts. Use of a common metric,however, will most likely involve any number of methods for estimating that metric. The twomost common metrics are fish number and fish biomass.

For example, a wetlands restoration project may be selected to mitigate entrainment impacts byproviding for the production of a certain number of a particular age class of fish (deemedimportant as a result of discussions and negotiations among appropriate stakeholders). Themetric common to both the CWIS impacts and the restoration is the number of fish of aparticular age class. To scale the restoration project, first an estimate would be needed of thenumber of the specific age class fish that would not be produced as a result of the number ofeggs and/or larvae lost to entrainment at the CWIS. This requires a method for translatingnumbers entrained into a corresponding number of fish of a specific age (e.g., age 1).


4-18

Secondly, an estimate would be needed of the number of fish of that age that could be expectedto be produced per unit area of restored wetland. Different methods would be needed to translatewetland primary productivity into production of fish biomass of the appropriate species and ageclasses. Alternatively, the production of food resources attributable to a given area of wetlandmay be estimated and then used to predict how many additional fish could be supported by thisadditional food base.

In all cases, scaling will require ecological information (such as diet, foraging habitat, predationrates, natural mortality rates, and growth rates) for the target species and information on theproductivity of the selected enhancement approach.

Methods that have been used for translating fisheries losses (including losses from impingementand entrainment) and mitigation approaches to a common scaling metric include:

• Direct replacement,

• Production of equivalent adults,

• Foregone production,

• Production of equivalent biomass,

• Energy transfer and food chain models, and

• Fish replacement values.

Aspects of these various metrics and methods for calculating them are discussed below. EPRIwill publish detailed guidance on calculating equivalent adults and production foregone losses in2004; the basics of these approaches, however, are reviewed in Goodyear (1978), Rago (1984),Jenson et al. (1988), EPRI (1999, 2002), and Dey (2003). Each method has its advantages andlimitations with regard to data needs, uncertainties, and applicability for scaling specificenhancement alternatives (e.g., wetlands creation, fishway installation) (Table 4-1). While thesemethods may be used individually, they are typically used in some combination.

Direct Replacement. Direct replacement (or individual loss) involves the absolute number orweight of fish that are lost to impingement and entrainment from CWIS operation. As anenhancement metric, direct replacement is conceptually simple; requires minimal information,effort, time, and expertise; is easy to measure; and is readily understood and accepted by non-experts (EPRI 2002). Another advantage of direct replacement is that if the numbers ofindividuals impinged and entrained for a given species are very low relative to the expected sizeof the population, it would be possible to eliminate that species from further consideration (EPRI2002). The primary disadvantage of direct replacement is that it is only weakly related to theassessment endpoint (e.g., population or community). Also, direct replacement does not providea quantification of density-dependence or multiple stresses (EPRI 2002). For example, winterstress may cause impingement levels to be high. However, the fish impinged are largely dead or


4-19

Table 4-1Advantages and Limitations of Methods Used for ScalingEnvironmental Enhancements.

Method Advantages Limitations

Direct replacement Limited data needs; modelingnot required; low level ofuncertainty.

No quantification of density-dependence or multiplestresses; primarily applicableto stocking.

Equivalent adults Limited data needs. Uncertainties associated withestimating production ofspecific age classes byhabitat.

Production foregone Can estimate production ofboth prey and predatorspecies.

Complex analytical equations;high data requirement needs;uncertainties in estimatinghabitat productivity; musttranslate to impinged andentrained species.

Equivalent biomass Limited data needs; usesestimated habitat productivityfor scaling.

Uncertainties in estimatinghabitat productivity; must linkbiomass to biomass of targetspecies.

Energy transfer and food chainmodels

Can estimate biomass of fishproduction per unit of habitatarea; can be coupled withadult equivalent, productionforegone, or equivalentbiomass estimates to scalehabitat restoration projects.

Tend to be complex and data-intensive; may have a highdegree of uncertainty inbiomass estimates.

Replacement values Provides a defensibleestimation of monetary valueof impingement andentrainment losses; valuationof all species.

No direct connection tospecies numbers or biomass;primarily used for monetarycompensation of impingementand entrainment losses.

moribund individuals that would be lost from the fishery regardless of whether they would beimpinged (LaJeone and Monzingo 2000).

Equivalent Adults. Because impingement and entrainment losses often include multiple lifestages for a given species, total losses are generally expressed as equivalent losses of a single,common life stage. The Equivalent Adult Model (Goodyear 1978, Dey 2003) is used to expressimpingement and entrainment losses (generally based on CWIS monitoring studies) as anequivalent number of individuals at some specified life stage. This specified life stage is referredto as the age of equivalency. The age of equivalency can be any life stage of interest, such asage 1. For any given species, the model estimates the number of individuals annually lost to


4-20

impingement and entrainment that would otherwise have been expected to survive to the age ofequivalency. Estimates of survival to the specified age of equivalency are generally derived fromnatural and fishing mortality rates available in the scientific literature or from natural resourceagencies, although estimates for all life stages for a species may not be available (Goodyear1978, EPRI 1999, 2002, Dey 2003).

The model provides a convenient means for converting losses of eggs and larvae into units ofindividual fish, and provides a standard metric that can be used to compare losses among species,years, and facilities. The number of equivalent adults, or other life stage, can be used todetermine the number of fish that should be stocked (when not directly replacing impinged orentrained life stages), or to determine the area of a specific habitat type that would be needed tocompensate for the loss. If the scaling metric selected is biomass rather than number oforganisms, the age equivalent loss estimates can be converted to a total weight for each speciesusing the average weight for the age class. Acres of habitat required to offset CWIS losses couldthen be estimated from the expected biomass production of that age class for a specific habitattype. Information needed to scale a restoration project would include habitat utilization by thespecies and age class of concern, and the number of individuals within each designated age class.If the age equivalent loss estimates are converted to total weight, information necessary for anenergy transfer or food chain model would be required to estimate biomass production of thespecies of concern (see Equivalent Biomass, below).

Advantages of the Equivalent Adult Model include the limited data requirements, readyavailability of mortality and growth rates for many commercially and recreationally importantfish species, and relatively low levels of uncertainty. Limitations of this method include the lackof information on mortality and growth rates for some species or age classes (EPRI 1999, 2002,Dey 2003).

Production Foregone. The Production Foregone Model (Rago 1984, Jensen et al. 1988)estimates the additional biomass that would have been produced by a population in the absenceof impingement and entrainment losses. The model estimates potential future production ofindividuals of species that would be impinged or entrained by using estimated life-stage-specificlosses. Estimates of growth and survival, based on species-specific growth curves and species-specific survival curves available from scientific literature or developed from site-specificstudies, are used to calculate future production (EPRI 1999, 2002). The model uses growth rates,survival rates, and average weight for each age class identified in CWIS operational losses,although a version of the model has been developed that does not require growth or survivalrates. Since foregone production may represent lost food resources for higher trophic levels, itcan also be calculated to assess the indirect impact on piscivorous species that do not experienceimpingement and entrainment.

This model provides a means of converting CWIS losses into foregone future growth of fishspecies of interest using biomass as the metric. The foregone production estimate can be used todetermine the area required for habitat restoration or creation. Information on habitat utilizationand food requirements of the species of concern would be required for determining the relevanthabitat types and for scaling. Acres of habitat required to offset impingement and entrainmentlosses could be estimated by multiplying the foregone production of a given species by the per-


4-21

acre productive capacity of that habitat for that species. The per-acre productive capacity of thehabitat can be estimated using an energy transfer or food chain model (see Equivalent Biomass,below).

An advantage of the Production Foregone Model is that direct comparisons can be made betweenthe species-specific foregone production of the age-specific lost organisms (e.g., eggs or larvae)and the production of the species and age class of interest in the specific habitat types consideredas potential enhancements. In addition, the model can be used to estimate both direct effects onpredatory and prey species and indirect food chain effects on predatory species. Application ofthe Production Foregone Model may be constrained by availability of the requisite informationor life-stage-specific growth and survival rates and uncertainties in estimating biomassproductivity in created or restored habitats.

Equivalent Biomass. The equivalent biomass procedure converts entrainment numbers tobiomass, calculates the amount of biomass entrained by the power plant, estimates habitatprimary productivity, converts that habitat productivity estimate to a per-acre rate of biomassproduction of target species in the restored habitat (using an energy transfer model), and thencalculates the habitat acres needed to provide that level of production by dividing the requiredbiomass production by the per-acre production of restored habitat (Duke Energy 2002). Forexample, as part of its HEP, Duke Energy employed HEA to determine proposed wetland andestuarine restoration and preservation requirements (in acres) to mitigate for fish and crabbiomass (in kilograms) entrained at its Morro Bay Power Plant (Duke Energy 2002). Thisanalysis required (1) estimation of biomass entrained over the life of the power plant,(2) estimation of eelgrass and marsh productivity in the bay on which the power plant is located,(3) conversion of eelgrass and marsh productivity to fish and crab biomass produced per acre peryear, and (4) estimation of the total fish and crab biomass that would be generated over theestimated lifespan of the power plant. This information was then used to estimate the acres ofhabitat that would be needed to compensate for crab and fish losses from entrainment

Thus, fish biomass is an ecosystem-level link between CWIS losses and the gains in primaryproduction achieved through an environmental enhancement. Limitations of this approach mayinclude a lack of available data on food web components and trophic structure for some locationsand of requisite ecological data for some species. Uncertainties in the analysis, however, can beaccommodated by applying an agreed upon safety factor to the estimated amount of habitatrequired to offset entrainment (Teal and Weinstein 2002).

Energy Transfer and Food Chain Models. While methods such as equivalent adult productionand production foregone can be used to quantify estimates of impingement and entrainmentlosses from CWIS operations, these methods do not provide adequate estimates of additional fishproduction resulting from habitat creation or restoration. Energy transfer and food chain modelsare often used to estimate production of fish and macroinvertebrates resulting from habitatcreation and restoration projects (Deegan et al. 2000, Patterson 2001, Weinstein et al. 2001,Duke Energy 2002). In general, energy transfer and food chain models estimate primaryproductivity for a particular habitat and then model the flow of energy or biomass from theprimary producers through food webs to higher trophic levels and selected species.


4-22

Energy transfer and food chain models can be used to estimate fish biomass produced per acre ofhabitat by modeling time conversion of plant productivity to fish biomass through the food chain(Patterson 2001, Weinstein et al. 2001). An energy transfer model was used at Duke Energy’sMorro Bay facility to estimate the fish and crab biomass production per acre of restored wetlandper year (Duke Energy 2002) on the basis of the primary production of eelgrass and coastalmarsh habitats. The estimated fish biomass production per unit of habitat area can then becoupled with adult equivalent, production foregone, or equivalent biomass estimates to scale ahabitat restoration project. For example, PSEG employed a linear food chain model using totalplant biomass to calculate the wetland area required to produce the biomass of fish equivalent tothat impacted by the power plant CWIS (Weinstein et al. 1997, 2001).

Because energy transfer or food chain models may be very complex, they can also be very dataintensive. While simpler models may be developed, such models may have a high degree ofuncertainty associated with their biomass productivity estimates. Such simple models may beuseful, however, for developing scaling estimates for use in preliminary project planningmeetings and negotiations.

Data needs associated with these models include the trophic structure of the habitat of interest,primary productivity rates, trophic transfer efficiencies, and habitat utilization and growth ratesfor relevant species (Deegan et al. 2000). Other information that has been used in such modelsincludes the amount of land-water interface, water temperature, turbidity, vegetation structure,geomorphology, frequency and duration of flooding, tidal range, and detrital decomposition rates(Deegan et al. 2000, Weinstein et al. 2000a). Data sources may include the open scientificliterature and natural resource agency reports, as well as site-specific or watershed-specificstudies (EPRI 1999).

Fish Replacement Value. Enhancement or restoration to compensate for CWIS operationallosses could also be scaled based upon the economic value of the organisms that are affected.For example, the American Fisheries Society (AFS) has compiled estimates of the replacementvalues of various fish species, organized by geographic region and fish size, on the basis of theaverage cost of hatchery-raised fish (AFS 1992). These values, derived from surveys of public,private, and tribal fish hatcheries in the United States, are commonly used by managementagencies to determine monetary compensation for fish kills. Using the supplied information,together with information about the number of fish affected by CWIS operations, it is possible toestablish the total monetary value for the affected organisms.

The simplest use of the resulting valuation to scale restoration projects would be to establish thenumber of organisms that must be stocked (e.g., based on production costs) or the amount ofmoney that must be spent to compensate for the value of the affected fish. For example,Maryland regulations require facilities with CWISs to spend up to 5 times the annual value offish and crabs impinged based on the valuations compiled by the AFS. For Mirant’s Chalk PointFacility on the tidal Patuxent River, this resulted in approximately $2.25 million in liability overa 5-year period (Bailey et al. 2000).

Alternatively, the replacement valuation method could potentially be used to determine theamount of habitat that would be needed to produce organisms (not necessarily the same species


4-23

affected by CWIS operations) of a value equivalent to the value of impinged and entrained biota.An energy transfer model could be used to develop an estimate of the numbers, species, and sizesof organisms that could be produced per unit area of habitat. A fish replacement value couldthen be assigned to the habitat unit, and the restoration project could be scaled to compensate forthe replacement value determined for the impinged and entrained fishes.

4.2.4.4 Use of Multiple Scaling Metrics

In most cases, a variety of metrics for estimating CWIS operational losses and productivity of theproposed restoration activity will be needed to scale the environmental enhancement project. Forexample, an equivalent biomass method was used at the Morro Bay Power Plant to estimate fishand crab entrainment losses, while an energy transfer modeling approach was used to predict thebiomass of fish and crab that would be produced per acre of restored wetland. These resultswere then used to scale the wetland restoration project (Duke Energy 2002).

The use of multiple methods for estimating facility impacts and restoration project benefits,especially if the results are complementary, can give stakeholders added confidence that the scaleof the selected mitigation project is appropriate. For example, PSEG (Patterson 2001) providedloss estimates in its permit application in several ways:

• Fish number and density (fish/m3);

• Conditional mortality rates (CMRs) for the local Delaware River portion of young-of-the-year population;

• Age 1 equivalent recruits;

• Production foregone estimates of the total reduction in future growth (measured in units ofbiomass);

• Spawning stock biomass per recruit; and

• Equilibrium stock size (based on spawner recruit analysis).

4.2.4.5 Use of Safety Factors

The outcome of restoration projects, regardless of the nature of the project (e.g., stocking,artificial reef construction) or the context under which it is being carried out (e.g., impingementand entrainment mitigation, wetlands compensation required under an Army Corps of Engineerswetland permit), will be somewhat uncertain. This uncertainty may be related to:

• Assumptions and subsequent estimate of baseline conditions (impingement and entrainmentlosses);


4-24

• Modeling assumptions and subsequent estimates of productivity of the environmentalenhancement;

• Assumptions and subsequent predictions of stocking success;

• Assumptions regarding availability and productivity of newly accessible spawning, nursery,and foraging habitats resulting from fish passage restoration;

• Assumptions regarding the anticipated length of time for a restoration project to reach agiven level of effectiveness.

Because of such uncertainties, restoration projects are often scaled to a level greater than thatestimated to exactly offset impacted biota. For example, wetland replacement projects regulatedby the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are often required to have replacement ratios greater than1:1 (i.e., more than one acre of replacement wetland for every acre of wetland destroyed)(USACE 2001). A study of Indiana wetland compensatory mitigation projects found averagewetland replacement ratios to range from 1:1 for open water wetlands up to 7.6:1 for wetmeadow wetlands (Robb 2001).

Such safety factors have been used in numerous restoration projects that were developed tomitigate CWIS operational losses at power plants. For example, at the PSEG’s SalemGenerating Station, 2,424 acres of restored marsh was estimated to be needed to replace thebiomass of bay anchovy lost due to impingement and entrainment. Because of uncertainties andvariability surrounding the fish production estimates for restored wetlands and other assumptionsused to derive that acreage, a “safety factor” of about four was used to achieve consensus amongstakeholders, increasing the restoration acreage to 10,000 acres.

The USEPA has concerns regarding the uncertainties associated with restoration success(USEPA 2003). Consequently, the USEPA is now considering requiring documentation of thesources and magnitude of uncertainty in restoration project performance as part of restorationproposals submitted to the permitting authority. The USEPA believes that a clear and thoroughdocumentation of the sources and nature of uncertainty is vital to fully evaluating the ability of aproject to meet its objectives and subsequently taking, as necessary, the appropriate steps toprevent or compensate for potential performance shortfalls. The USEPA believes thatdocumentation of uncertainty must be quantitative wherever possible, qualitative otherwise, andmake use of sound statistical techniques. Because of the complexity and evolving nature ofrestoration projects as an environmental management tool, most such projects will have severalareas of uncertainty in descriptions of their anticipated performance. The USEPA is solicitinginformation on uncertainty in restoration projects and on appropriate methods for itscharacterization; the USEPA may include specific language regarding review and documentationof uncertainty in the final rule, which will be issued by February 16, 2004.


4-25

4.3 Monitoring

Because of the time lags typically encountered when measuring ecological responses to specificactions, activities, or environmental changes, difficulty in collecting data on natural systems, andconfounding factors such as variable climatic conditions and unexpected anthropogenicinfluences, it is often difficult to determine the long-term effects of an environmental change,whether positive or negative (Wieringa and Morton 1996). Therefore, effective monitoring canbe useful for evaluating both the short-term and long-term success of a restoration program.Monitoring is a meaningful way to document the performance of an environmental enhancementor overall CWIS mitigation program and is essential for validation of design criteria and foradaptive management.

Regardless of the type of restoration project selected, some type of monitoring should beconsidered to demonstrate that project goals and benefits are being, or have been, achieved.Monitoring plans should (1) identify the habitat features required for project success; (2) identifyappropriate performance criteria; (3) establish a monitoring schedule; (4) identify the appropriateduration of monitoring; (5) establish criteria that trigger early corrective actions; and (6) developalternative actions in the event that the project, as planned, becomes impossible or impracticableto complete because of unexpected or uncontrollable circumstances (Duke Energy 2002).

4.4 Adaptive Management

Adaptive management (as a component of the monitoring plan) should be considered as acomponent of many mitigation projects. Some types of mitigation (e.g., stocking programs) maynot require an adaptive management approach if actions have been clearly agreed upon inadvance. Reasons for using adaptive management include complications in linking specificmanagement practices with resource responses, difficulty in scientifically measuring resourceresponses in the field, time lags between implementing mitigation activities and elicitingmeasurable resource responses, the complex and only partially understood interrelationshipsamong many natural resources, and the confounding responses of resources to natural variabilityor cycles (Wieringa and Morton 1996, ISAB 2000). Adaptive management provides amechanism to modify enhancement or restoration efforts in light of new information and otheremerging aquatic resource issues (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 1999, USEPA2003).

Adaptive management uses best available information or professional judgment when makingdecisions regarding how best to accomplish project goals, and allows those decisions to berevisited and revised as new information is collected (through monitoring and advances inrestoration science) (Wieringa and Morton 1996). In some cases, it may be desirable to developspecific performance measures that serve as triggers for altering management actions associatedwith enhancement projects. The adaptive management program should also consider how therestoration program will be enforced through permit conditions or other measures and evaluatecost estimates and any enforceable payment schedules that may be part of the restoration project(Duke Energy 2002).


4-26

The USEPA has noted its interest in the adaptive management approach as a requirement inrestoration proposals (USEPA 2003). The USEPA believes that under adaptive management, anapproach is chosen to address a problem, and its effectiveness is monitored during itsimplementation. Information from this monitoring (as noted above) is then used to makeadjustments, as necessary, to the approach. The USEPA believes that adaptive management is aparticularly useful method when the outcome of a chosen approach is uncertain, as discussed inthe previous section. Because of the uncertainty and evolving nature of restoration projects as anenvironmental management tool, the USEPA is considering requiring permittees who choose toutilize restoration projects to create and implement an adaptive management plan. The planwould outline, to the extent possible, the actions a permittee would take should monitoring ofproject performance indicate deviation of performance from acceptable levels. The plan woulddescribe, quantitatively where possible, the performance levels at which project adjustmentwould be necessary (USEPA 2003).

The USEPA is also considering requiring that permittees stipulate performance measurementmethods and metrics in the monitoring plan of their restoration proposal (USEPA 2003). TheUSEPA believes that the adaptive management process relies heavily on adequate performancemeasurement methods and metrics to alert project managers to project deviations from expectedperformance levels or to indicate that a project is meeting performance goals. It is important forthese reasons that project planners choose performance metrics that reflect attainment of projectgoals. Consideration should also be given to allowing the use of alternative performancemeasures that can be implemented if it is later determined that primary measurement methods ormetrics are unreliable. Thus, there will be a need to translate the language of the rule(i.e., maintain fish and shellfish in the water body, including the community structure andfunction, at “a comparable” or “substantially similar level to” that which would be achieved bymeeting the impingement mortality and, when applicable, entrainment reduction requirements[USEPA 2002]) to quantitative measures as accurately and directly as possible. Proxymeasurement methods should be used with adequate caution. The USEPA also believes thatproject planners should, where feasible, monitor for information useful for making corrections,as needed, in a project’s performance.

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This interim report evaluated five environmental enhancement approaches for potential use inmitigating impingement and entrainment impacts at CWISs. These approaches included(1) wetlands creation, restoration, and banking; (2) establishment or restoration of SAV;(3) construction of artificial habitats (particularly reefs); (4) restoration of fish passage;(5) supplementation of fish stocks through stocking; and (6) habitat protection. Each of theseenhancement techniques has been successfully used in freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitatsthroughout the United States. These approaches are currently being implemented by variousfederal, state, and local government agencies, private organizations, and public and privatepartnerships to mitigate impacts to aquatic resources from a variety of anthropogenic causes,such as encroachment and pollution releases. Each of these enhancement approaches is based onunderlying widely accepted ecological principles, and some may be considered as distinctsubdisciplines of fisheries science. Scientific research to investigate and strengthen each of theseapproaches is ongoing.

Each of the enhancement approaches evaluated in this report may be applicable to mitigatingoperational impacts of CWISs. These approaches may be ecologically more beneficial andpotentially more cost effective than modifying existing generating facilities with closed-cyclecooling systems or other engineering or operational modifications. Enhancement approachesinvolving the creation or restoration of wetlands and SAV and the construction of artificialhabitats have the potential to offset CWIS impacts by increasing or enhancing spawning,foraging, and nursery habitats for target (and nontarget) fishes and invertebrates in freshwater,estuarine, and marine environments. The restoration of fish passage also has the potential toincrease production by increasing access to existing historically available habitat that becameinaccessible because of some form of anthropogenic stream obstruction (such as a dam orculvert). Fish passage restoration is most often used in riverine environments, although it is alsobeing used to restore fish access to wetlands cut off by dikes and levees from estuarine andcoastal areas. In addition to increasing numbers of fish, emigrating juveniles may provideimportant forage for piscivores that are lost due to CWIS operations. Stocking can be used toenhance specific fish stocks that are being impacted by impingement or entrainment. Fishstocking is widely used to restore, supplement, or establish fish species in a variety of aquatichabitats. Habitat protection may involve the direct purchase and management of existing qualityhabitat by an energy company, or may consist of a partnership between an energy company and agovernmental or private organization or citizens group that identifies, purchases, and manageshabitats for protection.

Each enhancement approach evaluated in this interim report is applicable to mitigating CWISoperational impacts and may be possible to implement as an enhancement approach that cantarget a particular species of concern (i.e., the species being affected by CWIS operations).

Summary and Conclusions

5-2

Depending on the species impacted by CWIS operations and on the local or regionalenvironmental setting of the CWIS, it may not always be possible to implement an enhancementapproach at a location where it can directly benefit the populations affected by impingement orentrainment. In such cases, direct mitigation may not be possible and benefits resulting from theenhancement would be incurred by ecological resources only marginally affected, if affected atall, by CWIS operations.

Environmental enhancements may provide additional long-term environmental benefits(e.g., flood control, habitat for wildlife, pollution reduction, and recreation) that would not beprovided by technological and operational measures focused solely on reducing CWIS impacts.Such benefits would continue well after cessation of power plant operations.

Regardless of the environmental enhancement that might be considered at a site, a major factorthat needs to be addressed is what level of an enhancement is necessary to mitigate for a specificlevel of impingement or entrainment. This question will be especially difficult to answer forenhancements that address impingement and entrainment impacts through increasing habitatavailability and for enhancements that will benefit resources other than those experiencingimpingement or entrainment impacts.

A four-step framework was identified to aid in the selection and scaling of restoration projects tomitigate CWIS impacts. Steps in this framework may include: (1) setting the baseline, whichdetermines the type and amount of resources that incur impingement and entrainment impactsand for which mitigation is needed; (2) consideration of technological and/or operationalalternatives; (3) selecting the restoration approach; and (4) scaling the restoration project.Critical components of this framework include the need for early and frequent discussions withregulators, natural resource agencies, and appropriate stakeholders; a cost-benefit analysis ofpotential technological and/or operational mitigation alternatives; and the need to use one ormore metrics linking impingement and entrainment impacts to one or more environmentalenhancements and then scale the restoration projects to meet the needed mitigation level.

Future research on the applicability of environmental enhancements for mitigating CWISimpacts should focus on (1) increasing our understanding of the underlying science forsuccessful enhancement, (2) continued development of implementation tools and monitoringapproaches (including success criteria), and (3) continued development of methods fortranslating CWIS impacts into enhancement levels (scaling) that could achieve appropriate levelsof mitigation.

In addition to the use of environmental enhancements for mitigating CWIS operational impacts,the USEPA has endorsed water quality trading through a recently released trading policy. Thisnew policy, in conjunction with the USEPA’s discussion of trading in its April 2002 proposedSection 316(b) regulations, indicates that the time is ripe for exploring new opportunities fortrading. In its Section 316(b) proposal for existing facilities, the USEPA discusses trades of fishfor fish; this report also describes the concept of trading pollutants for fish. These types of tradeshave never been employed; therefore, many issues must be carefully considered and policiesdeveloped to implement Section 316(b) trading. Some of the issues that will need further studyinclude (1) determining the spatial scale in which trading partners must be located,(2) quantifying the units for trading (how many credits does a seller get for its excess

Summary and Conclusions

5-3

performance and how many credits must a buyer purchase to meet its targets), (3) developing acommon currency for trading (how to evaluate the improved environmental performanceassociated with a particular type of action), (4) determining and assigning compliance liability tothe buyer and seller in a trade, and (5) educating regulators and other stakeholders to build theircomfort with the concept of trading.

6 REFERENCES

Able, K.W., D. M. Nemerson, P.R. Light and R.O. Bush. 2000. “Initial Response of Fishes toMarsh Restoration at a Former Salt Hay Farm Bordering Delaware Bay.” Pages 749-773 in:Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology. M. P. Weinstein and D. A. Kreeger (eds.).Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.

Able, K.W., D. Nemerson, R. Bush and P. Light 2001. “Spatial Variation in Delaware Bay(U.S.A.) Marsh Creek Fish Assemblages.” Estuaries 24(3):441-452.

Adam, P. 1990. Saltmarsh Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 461 p.

Adamus, P., and L. Stockwell. 1983, A Method for Wetland Functional Assessment. ReportNo. FHWA –IP-82-23, Offices of Research, Development and Technology, Federal HighwayAdministration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.

Adamus, P., L. Stockwell, E. Clairain, M. Morrow, L. Rozas, R.D. Smith. 1991. WetlandEvaluation Technique. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-2, U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Admiraal, A., M. Morris, T. Brooks, J. Olson, and M. Miller. 1997. Illinois Wetland Restorationand Creation Guide. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 19.

AFS – see American Fisheries Society.

Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. 1994. “Record Shad Return Reported in the Susquehanna.”Bay Journal 4(4) July-Aug. Available at: http://www.bayjournal.com/94-08/shad.htm.

Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. 1997. “Susquehanna Marks Record Number of AmericanShad.” Bay Journal 7(5) July-Aug. Available at: http://www.bayjournal.com/97-08/shad.htm.

Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. 1998. “Record 30 Million American Shad Fry Released in BayTributaries.” Bay Journal 8(5) July-Aug. Available at: http://www.bayjournal.com/98-07/SHAD.htm.

Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. 2000. “Shad Stocking Efforts in Bay Tributaries Starting toShow Results.” Bay Journal 10(6) Sept. Available at: http://www.bayjournal.com/00-09/shadside.htm.

References

6-2

Amaral, S.V., G.N. Garnett, and N. Taft. 1998. Review of Downstream Fish Passage andProtection Technology Evaluations and Effectiveness. Report TR-111517. Electric PowerResearch Institute, Palo Alto, CA.

Amaral, S.V., E.P. Taft, F.C. Winchell, A. Plizga, E. Paolini, and C.W. Sullivan. 1999. “FishDiversion Effectiveness of a Modular Inclined Screen System.” Pages 61-78 in: Innovations inFish Passage Technology, M. Odeh (ed.). American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Ambrose, R.F., and S.L. Swarbrick. 1989. “Comparison of Fish Assemblages on Artificial andNatural Reefs off the Coast of Southern California.” Bulletin Marine Science 44(2):718-733.

Ambrose, R.F. 1994a. “Mitigating the Effects of a Coastal Power Plant on a Kelp ForestCommunity: Rationale and Requirements for an Artificial Reef.” Bulletin of MarineScience 55(2-3):694-708.

Ambrose, R.F. 1994b. Resource Replacement Alternatives Involving Constructed Reefs inSouthern California. Unpublished report. Sept. Available at: http://www.darcnw.noaa.gov/montrose/2001.pdf]

American Fisheries Society. 1992. Investigation and Valuation of Fish Kills. AmericanFisheries Society Special Publication No. 24. Pollution Committee, Southern Division, and theSocioeconomic Section, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

American Fisheries Society. 2000. Guidelines for Evaluating Fish Passage Technologies.Bioengineering Section, American Fisheries Society. Available at: http://biosys.bre.orst.edu/afseng/news.htm#passage_comm.

American Rivers. 2002. Dam Removal Costs. Available at: http://www.amrivers.org/damremovaltoolkit/damremovalcosts.htm.

American Rivers, Friends of the Earth, and Trout Unlimited. 1999. Dam Removal SuccessStories: Restoring Rivers through Selective Removal of Dams that Don’t Make Sense. Availableat: http://www.amrivers.org/damremovaltoolkit/successstoriesreport.htm.

American Society of Civil Engineers. 1997. Guidelines for Retirement of Dams andHydroelectric Facilities. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.

Arnold, J.G., P.M. Allen, and D.S. Morgan. 2001. “Hydrologic Model for Design andConstructed Wetlands.” Wetlands 21(2):167-178.

Aronson, J., S. Dhillion, and LeFloc’h. 1996. “On the Need to Select an Ecosystem of Reference,However Imperfect: A Reply to Pickett and Parker.” Restoration Ecology 3:1-3.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1997. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Policy.ASMFC Habitat Management Series #3.

References

6-3

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1999. Amendment 1 to the Interstate FisheryManagement Plan for Shad and River Herring. Fishery Management Report No. 35. MarineFisheries Commission, Washington, DC. April.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2000. Evaluating Fishing Gear Impacts toSubmerged Aquatic Vegetation and Determining Mitigation Strategies. ASMFC HabitatManagement Series #5.

Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions. 1998. Coastal Artificial Reef PlanningGuide. Prepared by the Joint Artificial Reef Technical Committee, Atlantic and Gulf StatesMarine Fisheries Commissions. Dec. Available at: http://www.gsmfc.org/pubs/SFRP/Coastal_Artificial_Reef_Planning_Guide_1998.pdf]

ASCE – see American Society of Civil Engineers.

Ayvazian, S.G., L.A. Deegan, and J.T. Finn. 1992. “Comparison of Habitat Use by EstuarineFish Assemblages in the Acadian and Virginian Zoogeographic Provinces.” Estuaries15:368-383.

Bailey, D.E., J.J. Loos, E.S. Perry, and R.J. Wood. 2000. “A Retrospective Evaluation of 316(B)Mitigation Options Using a Decision Analysis Framework.” Environmental Science and Policy3:S25-S36.

Baine, M. 2001. “Artificial Reefs: A Review of Their Design, Application, Management, andPerformance.” Ocean and Coastal Management 44:241-259.

Baish, S.K., S.D. David, and W.L. Graf. 2002. “The Complex Decisionmaking Process forRemoving Dams.” Environment 44(4):21-31.

Bakker, J.P., P. Esselink, K.S. Dijkema, W.E. van Duin, and D.J. de Jong. 2002. “Restoration ofSalt Marshes in the Netherlands.” Hydrobiologia 478:29-51.

Baltz, D.M., C. Rakocinski, and J.W. Fleeger. 1993. “Microhabitat Use by Marsh-Edge Fishes ina Louisiana Estuary. Environmental Biology of Fishes 36:109-126.

Barbier, E.B., M. Acreman, and D. Knowler. 1997. Economic Valuation of Wetlands: A Guidefor Policy Makers and Planners. Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland, Switzerland.

Barnett, A.M., T.D. Johnson, and R. Appy. 1991. “Evaluation of the Mitigative Value of anArtificial Reef Relative to Open Coast Sand Bottom by the Biological Evaluation StandardizedTechniques (BEST).” Pages 231-237 in: Recent Advances in Aquatic Habitat Technology.Proceedings of the Japan-U.S. Symposium on Artificial Habitat for Fisheries. M. Nakamura,R.S. Grove, and C.J. Sonu (eds.).

References

6-4

Bates, P.E. 1999. Fish Passage Design at Culverts, a Manual for Fish Passage at RoadCrossings. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Beck, M.W., K.L. Heck, K.W. Able, D.L. Childers, D.B. Eggleston, B.M. Gillanders,B. Halpern, C.G. Hays, K. Hoshino, T.J. Minello, R.J. Orth, P.F. Sheridan, and M.P. Weinstein.2001. “The Identification, Conservation, and Management of Estuarine and Marine Nurseries forFish and Invertebrates.” BioScience 51(8)633-641.

Blackett, R.F. 1987. “Development and Performance of an Alaskan Steeppass Fishway forSockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka).” Can. J. Aquat. Sci. 44:66-76.

Blama, R., M. Landin, S Maynord, and J. Gill. 1995. “Eastern Neck National Wildlife RefugeSalt Marsh: Innovative Structures and Bioengineering.” National Interagency Workshop onWetlands, 5-7 April, New Orleans, LA.

Blankenship, K., 1999. “Return of Spawning Shad a Tribute to Stocking, Passages.” BayJournal 9(5) July-Aug. Available at: http://www.bayjournal.com/99-07/SHAD.htm.

Blankenship, K., 2001. “Strong Shad Runs Reported in Bay’s Tributaries.” Bay Journal 11(6)Sept. Available at: http://www.bayjournal.com/01-09/shad.htm.

Boesch, D.F., and R.E. Turner. 1984. “Dependence of Fishery Species on Salt Marshes: TheRole of Food and Refuge.” Estuaries 7:460-468.

Bohlen, C., T Grasso, M. Hirshfield, B. Kooser, A. Powers, J. Watts, and E. Zucker. 1994.Wetlands Permitting Programs in the Chesapeake Bay Area. Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

Brady, V.J., B.J. Cardinale, J.P. Gathman, and T.M. Burton. 2002. “Does Facilitation of FaunalRecruitment Benefit Ecosystem Restoration? An Experimental Study of InvertebrateAssemblages in Wetland Mesocosms.” Restoration Ecology 10(4):617-626.

Brinson, M., 1993, A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Wetlands ResearchProgram Technical Report WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways ExperimentStation, Vicksburg, MS.

Brown, S.C., and P.L.M. Veneman. 2001. “Effectiveness of Compensatory Wetland Mitigationin Massachusetts, USA.” Wetlands 21(4):508-518.

Bunt, C.M. 2001. “Fishway Entrance Modifications Enhance Fish Attraction.” FisheriesManagement and Ecology 8(2):95-105.

Bunt, C.M., C. Katopodis, and R.S. McKinley. 1999. “Attraction and Passage Efficiency ofWhite Suckers and Smallmouth Bass by Two Denil Fishways.” North American Journal ofFisheries Management 19(3):793-803.

References

6-5

Bureau of Fisheries Management and Habitat Protection. 1999. An Evaluation of StockingStrategies in Wisconsin with an Analysis of Projected Stocking Needs. Prepared by WisconsinDepartment of Natural Resources, Bureau of Fisheries Management and Habitat Protection, forthe Joint Legislative Audit Committee, Madison, WI, April.

Cada, G.F., and M.J. Sale. 1993. “Status of Fish Passage Facilities at Nonfederal HydropowerProjects.” Fisheries 18(7):4-12.

California Coastal Commission. 2001. SONGS Mitigation Program: 2002 and 2003 Two-YearWork Program and Budget. Energy and Ocean Resources Report W-14. Nov. 21.

California Regional Water Control Board. 2003. Administrative Draft, Waste DischargeRequirements Order No. R3-2003-0001, NPDES No. CA0050598 for Duke Energy NorthAmerica, Morro Bay Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County.

Callaway, J.C. 2001. “Hydrology and Substrate.” Chapter 3 in: Handbook for Restoring TidalWetlands. J. Zedler (ed.). CRC Press, Boca Rotan, FL.

Campbell, D.A., C.A. Cole and R.P. Brooks. 2002. “A Comparison of Created and NaturalWetlands in Pennsylvania, USA.” Wetlands Ecology and Management 10:41-49.

Carr M.H, and M.A Hixon. 1995. “Predation Effects on Early Post-Settlement Survivorship ofCoral-Reef Fishes.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 124:31-42.

Carter, J.W., A.L. Carpenter, M.S. Foster, and W.N. Jessee. 1985a. “Benthic Succession on anArtificial Reef Designed to Support a Kelp-Reef Community.” Bulletin of Marine Science37(1):86-113.

Carter, J.W., W.N. Jessee, M.S. Foster, and A.L. Carpenter. 1985b. “Management of ArtificialReefs Designed to Support Natural Communities.” Bulletin of Marine Science 37(1):114-128.

CCC − see California Coastal Commission.

CDEP – see Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.

Charbonnel, E., C. Serre, S. Ruitton, J.-G. Harmelin, and A. Jensen. 2002. “Effects of IncreasedHabitat Complexity on Fish Assemblages Associated with Large Artificial Reef Units (FrenchMediterranean Coast).” ICES J. Marine Science 59:S208-S213.

Cheney, D., R. Oestman, G. Volkhardt, and J. Getz. 1994. “Creation of Rocky Intertidal Habitatsto Mitigate for the Construction of a Large Marina in Puget Sound, Washington.” Bulletin ofMarine Science 55(2-3):772-782.

Chesapeake Bay Program. 1999. Fish Passage Annual Report. Available atwww.chesapeakebay.net/fishpass.htm.

References

6-6

Chesapeake Bay Program. 2000. Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Water Qualityand Habitat-Based Requirements and Restoration Targets: A Second Technical Synthesis.Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.

Chesapeake Bay Restoration Program. 2002a. Fish Passage Restoration. Available at:http://www.chesapeakebay.net/restrtn.htm.

Chesapeake Bay Program. 2002b. Little Falls Dam Fishway Project. Available atwww.chesapeakebay.net/info/littlefall.html.

Clay, C.H. 1995. Design of Fishways and Other Fish Facilities. 2nd Edition. Lewis Publishers,Boca Raton, FL.

Coastal America. 1999. Project Summary, Little Falls Dam Passage Project. Washington, DC.Fact sheet available at: http://www.coastalamerica.gov/text/regions/ma/lfallsdam.html.

Costa-Pierce, B.A., and M.P. Weinstein. 2002. “Use of Dredge Materials for CoastalRestoration.” Ecological Engineering. 19:181-186.

Coll, J., J. Moranta, O. Reñones, A. García-Rubies, and I. Moreno. 1998. “Influence of Substrateand Deployment Time on Fish Assemblages on an Artificial Reef at Formentera Island (BalearicIslands, Western Mediterranean).” Hydrobiologia 385:139-152.

Collins, M.R., T.I.J. Smith, W.E. Jenkins, and M.R. Denson. 2002. “Small Marine Reserves MayIncrease Escapement of Red Drum.” Fisheries 27(2):20-24.

Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 2002. Endangered Colorado River BasinFish − Colorado Pike Minnow, Fact Sheet. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lakewood, CO.Available at http://www.r6.fws.gov/coloradoriver/Crcsq.htm

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 2002. Detailed Description ofConnecticut’s Fisheries Program. Available at: www.dep.state.ct.us/burnatr/fishing/geninfo/progrms.htm.

Conservation Fund. 2001. 2001 Annual Report. Available at: http://www.conservationfund.org/pdf/2001%20annual%20report/2001%20annual%20report.pdf.

Costa-Pierce, B.A., and M.P. Weinstein. 2002. “Use of Dredge Materials for CoastalRestoration.” Ecological Engineering 19:181-186.

Craft, C., J. Reader, J.N. Sacco, and S.W. Bromme. 1999. “Twenty-five Years of EcosystemDevelopment of Constructed Spartina alterniflora (Loisel) Marshes.” Ecological Applications9(4):1405-1419.

References

6-7

Craft, C., S. Broome, and C. Campbell. 2002. “Fifteen Years of Vegetation and SoilDevelopment after Brackish-Water Marsh Creation.” Restoration Ecology 10(2):248-258.

CREFRP – see Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.

Daiber, F.C. 1977. “Salt Marsh Animals: Distributions Related to Tidal Flooding, Salinity, andVegetation.” Chapter 5, pp. 79-108 in: Wet Coastal Ecosystems. V.J. Chapman (ed.). ElsevierScientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Dame, R.F., E. Koepfler, and L. Gregory. 2000. “Benthic-Pelagic Coupling in Marsh-EstuarineEcosystems.” In: Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Mash Ecology. M.P. Weinstein and D.A.Kreeger (eds.). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.

Davis, G.E. 1985. “Artificial Structures to Mitigate Marina Construction Impacts on SpinyLobster, Panulirus argus.” Bulletin of Marine Science 37(1):151-156.

Deegan, L., J. Hughes, and R. Rountree. 2000. “Salt Marsh Ecosystem Support of MarineTransient Species.” In: Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology. M. Weinstein andD. Kreeger (eds.). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.

DeMartini, E.E., A.M. Barnett, T.D. Johnson, and R.F. Ambrose. 1994. “Growth and ProductionEstimates for Biomass-Dominant Fishes on a Southern California Artificial Reef.” Bulletin ofMarine Science 55(2-3):484-500.

Demgen, F.C. 1988. “A Review of Eighteen Wetland Mitigation Sites in the San Francisco BayRegion.” Pages 318-322 in: Urban Wetlands. Proceedings of the National Wetland Symposium.Oakland, CA.

Department of Defense et al. 1997. “The National Action Plan to Implement the Hydrogeo-morphic Approach to Assessing Wetland Functions.” Federal Register Vol. 62, No. 119,pp. 33607-33620, June 20.

Department of the Army. 2002. Guidelines on the Establishment and Operation of WetlandMitigation Banks in Georgia. Department of the Army, Savannah District; U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Region IV; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region; and GeorgiaDepartment of Natural Resources.

Desmond, J.S., D.H. Deutschman, and J.B. Zedler. 2002. “Spatial and Temporal Variation inEstuarine and Invertebrate Assemblages: Analysis of an 11-Year Data Set.” Estuaries25(4A):552-569.

Dey, W., S. Jinks, and W. Van Winkle. 2002. Evaluating the Effects of Power Plant Operationson Aquatic Communities: A Ecological Risk Assessment Framework for Evaluating AdverseEnvironmental Impact Under CWA §316(b). EPRI Report 1000758. Electric Power ResearchInstitute, Palo Alto, CA.

References

6-8

Dey, W.P. 2003. “Use of Equivalent Loss Models under Section 316(b) of the Clean WaterAct.” Pages 264-290 in: D. Dixon, J.A. Veil, and J. Wisniewski (Eds.), Defining and AssessingAdverse Environmental Impact from Power Plant Impingement and Entrainment of AquaticOrganisms. A.A. Balkema Publishers, The Netherlands.

Deysher, L.E., T.A. Dean, R.S. Grove, and A. Jahn. 2002. “Design Considerations for anArtificial Reef to Grow Giant Kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) in Southern California.” ICES Journalof Marine Science 59:S201-S207

Dixon, D.A., and J. Wisniewski. (eds.). 2002. Defining and Assessing Adverse EnvironmentalImpact Under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. The Scientific World Publishers, London.

DOA − see Department of the Army.

Duke Energy. 2002. Duke Energy Morro Bay LLC, Morro Bay Power Plant ModernizationProject, Habitat Enhancement Program. Morro Bay, CA.

EARRN − see European Artificial Reef Research Network.

Edwards, W.J., L. Babcock-Jackson, and D.A. Culver. 2000. “Prevention of the Spread of ZebraMussels during Fish Hatchery and Aquaculture Activities.” North American Journal ofAquaculture 62(3):229-236.

Electric Power Research Institute. 1999. Catalog of Assessment Methods for Evaluating theEffects of Power Plant Operations on Aquatic Communities. Report TR-112013. Palo Alto, CA.

Electric Power Research Institute. 2000. Review of Entrainment Survival Studies: 1970-2000.Prepared for Electric Power Research Institute, Inc., by EA Engineering Science andTechnology.

Electric Power Research Institute. 2001. Evaluating the Effects of Power Plant Operating onAquatic Communities: An Ecological Risk Assessment Framework for Evaluating AdverseEnvironmental Impact Under CWA §316(b). EPRI Report 1000758. Palo Alto, CA.

Electric Power Research Institute. 2002. Evaluating the Effects of Power Plants on AquaticCommunities: Guidelines for Selection of Assessment Methods. EPRI Report 1005176. Palo Alto,CA.

Electric Power Research Institute. 2003. Evaluating the Effects of Power Plant Operations onAquatic Communities: Summary of Impingement Survival Studies. EPRI Report 1007821. PaloAlto, CA.

Elizinga, C., D. Salzer, and J. Willoughby. 1998. Measuring & Monitoring Plant Populations.BLM Technical Reference 1730-1, BLM/RS/ST-98/005+1730. National Applied ResourceSciences Center, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO.

References

6-9

Epifanio, J. 2000. “The Status of Coldwater Fishery Management in the United States: AnOverview of State Programs.” Fisheries 25(7): 13-27.

EPRI − see Electric Power Research Institute.

European Artificial Reef Research Network. 1999. Bibliography of Artificial Reef Research.Available at http://www.soes.soton.ac.uk/research/groups/EARRN/. Sept. 1.

Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration,Principles, Processes, and Practices. GPO Item No. 0120-A.

Feierabend, S.J., and J.M. Zelanzy. 1987. Status Report on Our Nation’s Wetlands. NationalWildlife Federation, Washington, D.C. 50 p.

Fell, P.E., R.S. Warren, and W.A. Niering. 2000. “Restoration of Salt and Brackish Tidelands inSouthern New England.” Pages 845-858 in: Concepts and Controversies in Tidal MarshEcology, M.P. Weinstein and D.A. Kreeger (eds.). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.

Felton, S.P., R. Grace, and M. Landolt. 1994. “Significantly Higher Levels of Zinc and CopperFound in Wild Compared to Hatchery-Reared Coho Salmon Smolts Oncorhynchus Kisutch.”Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 18(3):233-236.

Fernandez, L., and L. Karp. 1998. “Restoring Wetlands Through Wetlands Mitigation Banks.”Environmental and Resource Economics 12:323-344.

FISRWG − see Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group.

Flagg, T.A., B.A. Berejikian, J.E. Colt, W.W. Dickhoff, L.W. Harrell, D.J. Maynard, C.E. Nash,M.S. Strom, R.N. Iwamoto, and C.V.W. Mahnken. 2000. Ecological and Behavioral Impacts ofArtificial Production Strategies on the Abundance of Wild Salmon Populations. A Review ofPractices in the Pacific Northwest. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-41.National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Resource Enhancementand Utilization Technologies, Seattle, WA. Available at: http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/pubs/tm/tm41/tm41/tm41.pdf.

Fleming, I.A., and M.R. Gross. 1992. “Reproductive Behavior of Hatchery and Wild CohoSalmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)–Does It Differ?” Aquaculture 103(2):101-121.

Flosi, G., S. Downie, J. Hopelain, M. Bird, R. Coey, and B. Collins. 1998. California SalmonidStream Habitat Restoration Manual. 3rd Edition. California Department of Fish and Game,Inland Fisheries Division, Sacramento, CA.

References

6-10

Fonseca, M.S., W.J. Kenworthy, and G.W. Thayer. 1998. Guidelines for the Conservation andRestoration of Seagrasses in the United States and Adjacent Waters. Decision Analysis SeriesNo. 12. National Atmospheric and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Ocean Program, SilverSpring, MD.

Foster, K.L., F.W. Steimle, W.C. Muir, R.K. Kropp, and B.E. Conlin. 1994. “MitigationPotential of Habitat Replacement: Concrete Artificial Reef in Delaware Bay—PreliminaryResults.” Bulletin of Marine Science 55(2-3):783-795.

Francfort, J.E., G.F. Cada, D.D. Dauble, R.T. Hunt, D.W. Jones, B.N. Rinehart, G.L. Sommers,and R.J. Costello. 1994. Environmental Mitigation at Hydroelectric Projects; Vol. II: Benefitsand Costs of Fish Passage and Protection. Prepared by Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,Idaho Falls, ID, for U.S. Department of Energy, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency andRenewable Energy, Washington, D.C.

Friant, S.L. 1996. “When Ecological Considerations Matter in the RI/FS Process.” DOE RiskManagement 6(1):2-3.

Funk, J.L., and J.W. Robinson. 1974. Changes in the Channel of the Lower Missouri River andEffects on Fish and Wildlife. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO.

Garbarino, S., R. Blama, M. Landin, R. Hammerschlag, and S. Syphax. 1995. “KenilworthMarsh: A Classic Wetland Restoration Success Story in the Nation’s Capitol.” NationalInteragency Workshop on Wetlands, 5-7 April, 1995, New Orleans, LA.

Giorgi, A., M. Miller, and J. Stevenson. 2002. Mainstem Passage Strategies in the ColumbiaRiver System: Transportation, Spill, and Flow Augmentation. Prepared by BioAnalysts, Inc.,Boise, ID, for the Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, OR.

Goodwin, P., A.J. Mehta, and J.B. Zedler. 2001. “Tidal Wetland Restoration: An Introduction.”Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 27:1-6.

Goodyear, C.P. 1978. Entrainment Impact Estimates Using the Equivalent Adult Approach.Report No. FWS/OBS-78/65. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Gotceitas, V. 1990a. “Variation in Plant Stem Density and Its Effects on Foraging Success ofJuvenile Bluegill Sunfish.” Environmental Biology of Fishes 27:63-70.

Gotceitas, V. 1990b. “Foraging and Predator Avoidance: A Test of a Patch Choice Model withJuvenile Bluegill Sunfish.” Oecologia 83:346-351.

Grossman, G.D., G.P. Jones, and W.J. Seaman, Jr. 1997. “Do artificial Reefs Increase RegionalFish Production? A Review of Existing Data.” Fisheries 22(4):17-23.

References

6-11

Grove, R.S. 1982. “Artificial Reefs as a Resource Management Option for Siting Coastal PowerStations in Southern California.” Marine Fisheries Review 44(6-7):24-27.

Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1997. Guidelines for Marine Artificial Reef Materials.Artificial Reef Subcommittee, Technical Coordinating Committee, Gulf States Marine FisheriesCommission. Jan. Available at: http://www.gsmfc.org/pubs/SFRP/Guidelines_for_Marine_Artificial_Reef_Materials_January _1997.pdf.

Gunter, G. 1956. “Some Relations of Faunal Distribution to Salinity in Estuarine Waters.”Ecology 37:616-619.

Hampel, H., A. Cattrijsse, and M. Vincx. 2003. “Habitat Value of a Developing EstuarineBrackish Marsh for Fish and Macrocrustaceans.” ICES Journal of Marine Science 60:278-289.

Haney, A., and R.L. Power. 1996. “Adaptive Management for Sound Ecosystem Management.”Environmental Management 20:879-886.

Hanson, B. 1999. “Effectiveness of Two Surface Bypass Facilities on the Connecticut River toPass Emigrating Atlantic Salmon Smolts.” Pages 43-59 in: Innovations in Fish PassageTechnology. M. Odeh (ed.). American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Haro, A., M. Odeh, T. Castro-Santos, and J.F. Noreika. 1999a. “Effect of Slope and Headpondon Passage of American Shad and Blueback Herring through Simple Denil and Deepend AlaskaSteeppass Fishways.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19:51-58.

Haro, A., D. Deagan, J. Horne, B. Kulik, and J. Boubee. 1999b. An Investigation of theFeasibility of Employing Hydroacoustic Monitoring as a Means to Detect the Presence andMovement of Large, Adult Eels (Genus Anguilla). S.O. Conte Anadromous Fish Research CenterInternal Report No. 99-01. Available at: http://www.lsc.usgs.gov/cafl/reports/haro.htm.

Hatchery Scientific Review Group. 2000. Draft Scientific Framework for Artificial Propagationof Salmon and Steelhead. Hatchery Scientific Review Group, Puget Sound and CoastalWashington Hatchery Reform Project, Seattle, WA. Sept.

Hatchery Scientific Review Group. 2002. Hatchery Reform Recommendations. HatcheryScientific Review Group, Puget Sound and Coastal Washington Hatchery Reform Project,Seattle, WA. Feb.

Havens, K.J., L.M. Varnell, and B.D. Watts. 2002. “Maturation of a Constructed Tidal MarshRelative to two Natural Reference Tidal Marshes over 12 Years.” Ecological Engineering18:305-315.

Haynes, R.J., and L. Moore. 1988. “Reestablishment of Bottomland Hardwoods within NationalWildlife Refuges in the Southwest.” Pages 95-103 in: Increasing Our Wetland Resources.J. Zelazny and J.J. S.J. Feierabend (eds.). Proc. Conf. Natl. Wildl. Fed., Washington, D.C.

References

6-12

Hayse, J.W., and T.E. Wissing. 1996. “Effects of Stem Density of Artificial Vegetation onAbundance and Growth of Age-0 Bluegills and Predation by Largemouth Bass.” Transactions ofthe American Fisheries Society 125:422-433.

Heck, K.L., Jr., K.W. Able, M.P. Fahay, and C.T. Roman. 1989. “Fishes and DecapodCrustaceans of Cape Cod Eelgrass Meadows: Species Composition, Seasonal AbundancePatterns, and Comparison with Unvegetated Substrates.” Estuaries 12:59-65.

Heidinger, R.C. 1993. “Chapter 13, Stocking for Sport Fisheries Enhancement.” Pages 309-333in: Inland Fisheries Management in North America. C.C. Kohler and W.A. Hubert (eds.).American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Heinz Center. 2002. Dam Removal, Science and Decision Making. H. John Heinz III Center forScience, Economics and the Environment, Washington, D.C.

Hellawell, J.M. 1991. “Development of a Rationale for Monitoring.” Pages 1-14 in: Monitoringfor Conservation and Ecology. F.B. Goldsmith (ed.). Chapman and Hall, New York, NY.

Hendricks, M.L., R.L. Hoopes, D.A. Arnold, and M.L. Kaufmann. 2002. “Homing of Hatchery-Reared American Shad to the Lehigh River, a Tributary to the Delaware River.” North AmericanJournal of Fisheries Management 22(1)243-248.

Hilborn, R. 1992. “Hatcheries and the Future of Salmon in the Northwest.” Fisheries 17(1):5-8.

Hobbs, R.J., and D.A. Norton. 1996. “Commentary: Towards a Conceptual Framework forRestoration Ecology.” Restoration Ecology 4:93-110.

Holbrook, S.J., and R.J. Schmitt. 1988. “Effects of Predation Risk on Foraging Behavior:Mechanisms Altering Patch Choice.” Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology121:151-163.

Holling, C.S. 1978. “Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management.” Pages 1-139 in:International Series on Applied Systems Analysis. John Wiley, New York, NY.

Holt, G.J. 1993. “The Potential Role of Larval Fish Culture in Alleviating Population and HabitatLosses.” American Fisheries Society Symposium 14:167-172.

Hughes, J.E., L.A. Deegan, J.C. Wyda, M.J. Weaver, and A. Wright. 2002. “The Effects ofEelgrass Habitat Loss on Estuarine Fish Communities of Southern New England.” Estuaries25(2):235-249.

Hurley, L.M. 1991. “Submerged Aquatic Vegetation.” Pages 2-1 to 2-19 in: HabitatRequirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources. S.L. Funderburk, S.J. Jordan,J.A. Mihursky, and D. Riley (eds.). Living Resources Subcommittee, Habitat ObjectivesWorkgroup, Chesapeake Research Consortium, Solomons, MD.

References

6-13

Independent Scientific Advisory Board. 2000. Consistency of the Council’s Artificial ProductionPolicies and Implementation Strategies with Multi-Species Framework Principles and ScientificReview Team Guidelines. ISAB APR Report No. 2. Independent Scientific Advisory Board,Northwest Power Planning Council, National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, OR.

Interagency Workgroup on Wetland Restoration. Undated. An Introduction and User’s Guide toWetland Restoration, Creation, and Enhancement.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2002. Manchester Fish Hatchery. Iowa Department ofNatural Resources, Manchester, IA. Available at: http://www.state.ia.us/fish/programs/hatchery/manchest.htm.

ISAB − see Independent Scientific Advisory Board.

Iverson, T.K., J.E. Keister, and R.D. MacDonald. 1999. “Summary of the Evaluation of FishPassage through Three Surface Spill Gate Designs at Rock Island Dam in 1996.” Pages 129-142in: Innovations in Fish Passage Technology. M. Odeh, (ed.). American Fisheries Society,Bethesda, MD.

James-Pirri, M.J., K.B. Raposa, and J.G. Catena. 2001. “Diet Composition of Mummichogs,Fundulus heteroclitus, from Restoring and Unrestricted Regions of a New England (U.S.A.) SaltMarsh.” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 53: 205-213.

Janvrin, J. 2002. Estimate of Habitat Restoration Costs for the Upper Mississippi River System.Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, IL. Available at: http://www.mississippi-river.com/umrcc/pdf/AppendixA.pdf.

Jensen, A.L., R.H. Reider, and W.P. Kovalak. 1988. “Estimation of Production Foregone.”North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8:191-198.

Joint Hatchery Review Committee. 2001. Final Report on Anadromous Salmonid FishHatcheries in California. California Department of Fish and Game, National Marine FisheriesService Southwest Region, Joint Hatchery Review Committee. Dec. 3. Available at:http://dfg.ca.gov/lands/hacthery_review_report_2002.pdf.

Jones, D.R., J.W. Kiceniuk, and O.S. Bamford. 1974. “Evaluation of the Swimming Performanceof Several Fish Species from the Mackenzie River.” Journal of the Fisheries Research Board ofCanada 31:1641-1647.

Jones, K.B. 1986. “Inventory and Monitoring Process.” Pages 1-10 in: Inventory and Monitoringof Wildlife Habitat. A.Y. Cooperrider, R.J. Boyd, and H.R. Stuart (eds.). U.S. Department ofInterior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center, Denver CO.

References

6-14

Johnson, T.D., A.M. Barnett, E.E. DeMartini, L.L. Craft, R.F. Ambrose, and L.J. Purcell. 1994.“Fish Production and Habitat Utilization on a Southern California Artificial Reef.” Bulletin ofMarine Science 55(2-3):709-723.

Jorgensen, S.E., and W.J. Mitsch. 1989. “Classification and Examples of EcologicalEngineering.” Chapter 2 in: Ecological Engineering: An Introduction to Ecotechnology.W.J. Mitsch and S.E. Jorgensen (eds.).

Kamula, R. 2001. Flow Over Weirs with Application to Fish Passage Facilities. Department ofProcess and Environmental Engineering, University of Oulu, Finland.

Kay, D. 2002. Personal communication from Kay (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station,Southern California Edison) to Lina Urquidi (Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL).

Kemp, W.M., P.A. Sampson, J. Tuttle, and W.R. Boynton. 1992. “Seasonal Depletion of Oxygenfrom Bottom Waters of Chesapeake Bay: Roles of Benthic and Planktonic Respiration andPhysical Exchange Processes.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 85:137-152.

Kentula, M., R. Brooks, S. Gwin, C. Holland, A. Sherman, and J. Sifneos. 1992. An Approach toImproving Decision Making in Wetland Restoration and Creation. A. Hairston (ed.).U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.

Kiesecker, J.M., A.R. Blaustein, and C.L. Miller. 2001. “Transfer of a Pathogen from Fish toAmphibians.” Conservation Biology 15(4):1064-1070.

King, D.M., and C.C. Bohlen. 1994. Compensation Ratios for Wetland Mitigation. CEESWorking Paper UMCEES-CBL-94-10. University of Maryland, Center for Environmental andEstuarine Studies, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solomons, MD.

Kneib, R.T. 1987. “Predation Risk and Use of Intertidal Habitats by Young Fishes and Shrimp.”Ecology 68(2):379-386.

Kneib, R.T. 1997. “The Role of Tidal Marshes in the Ecology of Estuarine Nekton.” Pages163-220 in: Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 1997. A.D. Ansell,R.N. Gibson, and Margaret Barnes (eds.). UCL Press.

Knotek, W.L., M. Deleray, and B. Marotz. 1997. Hungry Horse Dam Fisheries MitigationProgram, Fish Passage and Habitat Improvement in the Upper Flathead River Basin. ReportDOE/BP-60559-4. Prepared by Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Helena, MT,for U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.

Kohler, C.C., and W.A. Hubert (eds.). 1993. Inland Fisheries Management in North America.American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

References

6-15

Kruczyaski, W.L. 1990. “Options To Be Considered in Preparation and Evolution of MitigationPlans.” Pages 555-570 in: Wetland Creation and Restoration, the Status of the Science.J.A. Kusler and M.E. Kentula (eds.). Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Kusler, J.A., and M.E. Kentula. 1989a. Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of theScience. Vol. I. Regional Review. Report EPA/600/3 – 89/038. U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Carvallis, OR.

Kusler, J.A., and M.E. Kentula. 1989b. Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of theScience. Vol. II: Perspectives. Report EPA/600/3 – 89/038. U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Carvallis, OR.

Kusler, J.A., and M.E. Kentula. 1990. “Executive Summary.” in: Wetland Creation andRestoration: The Status of the Science. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 591 p.

Laine, A., R. Kamula, and J. Hooli. 1998. “Fish and Lamprey Passage in a combined Denil andVertical Slot Fishway.” Fisheries Management and Ecology 5(1):31-44.

LaJeone, L.J., and R.G. Monzingo. 2000. “316(b) and Quad Cities Station, CommonwealthEdison Company.” Environmental Science & Policy 3:S313-S322.

Laney, R.W. 1997. “The Relationship of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) EcologicalValue to Species Managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC):Summary for the ASMFC SAV Subcommittee.” Pages 13-37 in: Atlantic Coastal SubmergedAquatic Vegetation: A Review of its Ecological Role, Anthropogenic Impacts, State Regulation,and Value to Atlantic Coastal Fish Stocks. C.D. Stephan and T.E. Bigford (eds.). Atlantic StatesMarine Fisheries Commission Habitat Management Series #1.

Larinier, M., and F. Travade. 1999. “The Development and Evaluation of Downstream Bypassesfor Juvenile Salmonids at Small Hydroelectric Plants in France.” Pages 25-42 in: Innovations inFish Passage Technology. M. Odeh (ed.). American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Lathrop, R.G., M.B. Cole, and R.D. Showalter. 2000. “Quantifying the Habitat Structure andSpatial Pattern of New Jersey (U.S.A.) Salt Marshes Under Different Management Regimes.”Wetlands Ecology and Management 8:163-172.

Leber, K.M., S.M. Arce, D.A. Sterritt, and N.P. Brennan. 1996. “Marine Stock-EnhancementPotential in Nursery Habitats of Striped Mullet Mugil Cephalus, in Hawaii.” Fisheries Bulletin94(3):452-471.

Levin, L.A., and T.S. Talley. 2002. “Natural and Manipulated Sources of HeterogeneityControlling Early Faunal Development of a Salt March.” Ecological Applications 12(6):1785-1802.

References

6-16

Levine, J. 2002. Personal communication from Levine (Levine-Fricke) to L. Urquidi (ArgonneNational Laboratory, Argonne, IL).

Lindberg, W.J. 1997. “Can Science Resolve the Attraction-Production Issue?” Fisheries22(4):10-13.

Lindig-Cisneros, R., and J.B. Zedler. 2002. “Halophyte Recruitment in a Salt Marsh RestorationSite.” Estuaries 25(6A):1174-1183.

Lindig-Cisneros, R., J. Desmond, K.E. Boyer, and J. Zedler. 2003. “Wetland RestorationThresholds: Can a Degradation Transition be Reversed with Increased Effort?” EcologicalApplications 13(1):193-205.

Mallen-Cooper, M. 1999. “Developing Fishways for Nonsalmonid Fishes: A Case Study fromthe Murray River, Australia.” Pages 173-196 in: Innovations in Fish Passage Technology,M. Odeh (ed.). American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Maloney, T., S. Gephard, and J. Monroe. 2000. Providing Fish Passage around Dams in theNortheast, a Fishway for Your Stream. Connecticut River Watershed Council, Inc.,Easthampton, MA.

Marble, A.D. 1992. A Guide to Wetland Funcitonal Design. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

Marsden, J.E., and M. Chotowski. 2001. “Lake Trout Spawning on Artificial Reefs and theEffect of Zebra Mussels: Fatal Attraction?” Journal of Great Lakes Research 27:33-43.

Marsden, J.E., D.L. Perkins, and C.C. Kreuger. 1995. “Recognition of Spawning Areas by LakeTrout: Deposition and Survival of Eggs on Small Man-Made Rock Piles.” Journal of GreatLakes Research 21:330-336, Supplement 1.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 1999. Anadromous Fish Restoration in theSusquehanna. PPRP Power Plant Update, Vol. 5, No. 4, Summer 1999.

McCrain, G. 1992. “Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) Applied to Mitigation Banking inNorth Carolina.” Journal of Environmental Management 35,153-162.

McNair, M. (compiler). 2001. Alaska Salmon Enhancement Program 2000 Annual Report.Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Juneau, Alaska.Available at: http://www.cf.adfg.state.ak.us/geninfo/pubs/rir/5J01-01.pdf.

MDNR – see Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

References

6-17

Mehan, G. 2001. Testimony of G. Tracy Mehan III, Assistant Administrator for Water,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Before the Subcommittee on Water Resources and theEnvironment of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House ofRepresentatives, Sept. 20.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2002. Why We Have Hatcheries. MichiganDepartment of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI. Available at: http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/1,1607,7-153-10364_10949-32816--,00.html.

Miller, M.J., and K.W. Able. 2002. “Movement and Growth of Tagged Young-of-the-YearAtlantic Croaker (Micropogonia undulatus L.) in Restored and Reference Marsh Creeks inDelaware Bay, USA.” Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 267:15-33

Miller, M.J., D.M. Nemerson, and K.W. Able. 2003. “Seasonal Distribution, Abundance, andGrowth of Young-of-the-year Atlantic Croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) in Delaware Bay andAdjacent Marshes.” Fishery Bulletin 101(1):100-115.

Minello, T.J., and R.J. Zimmerman. 1992. “Utilization of Natural and Transplanted Texas SaltMarshes by Fish and Decapod Crustaceans.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 90:273-285.

Mirant Corporation. 2002. Commitment to the Environment Mirant in the Mid-Atlantic: Raisingthe Environmental Standard. Atlanta, GA. Available at: http://www.mirant.com/commitment/environment/midatlantic.html.

Missouri Levee and Drainage District Association. 2000. Missouri Agricultural WetlandMitigation Bank Pilot Project, Wetland Restoration Cost Estimate.

Mitsch, W.J. 2000. “Self Design Applied to Coastal Restoration: An Application of EcologicalEngineering.” in: Concepts and Controversies in Tidal marsh Ecology. M.P. Weinstein andD.A. Kreuger (eds.). Klauwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.

Mitsch, W.J., and J. Gosselink, 1993, Wetlands. 2nd Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, NewYork, NY.

Mitsch, W.J., Z. Wu, R.W. Nairn, P.E. Weike, N. Wang, R. Deal, and C.E. Boucher. 1999.“Creating and Restoring Wetlands.” Bioscience 48(12):1019-1030.

MLDDA − see Missouri Levee and Drainage District Association.

Monaco, M.E. 1995. Comparative Analysis of Estuarine Bio-Physical Characteristics andTrophic Structure: Defining Ecosystem Function to Fishes. Ph.D. thesis, The University ofMaryland, College Park, MD. 389 p.

Muir Hotaling, N.E., W.J. Kuenzel, and L.W. Douglass. 2002. “Breeding Season Bird Use ofRestored Wetlands in Eastern Maryland.” Southeastern Naturalist 1(3):233-252.

References

6-18

Muth, R.T., L.W. Crist, K.E. LaGory, J.W. Hayse, K.R. Bestgen, T.P. Ryan, J.K. Lyons, andR.A. Valdez. 2000. Flow and Temperature Recommendations for Endangered Fishes in theGreen River Downstream of Flaming Gorge Dam, Final Report. Upper Colorado RiverEndangered Fish Recovery Program Project FG-53, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lakewood,CO.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2000. Summary of Research Related to Transportation ofJuvenile Anadromous Salmonids around Snake and Columbia River Dams. White Paper,Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2001. Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream Crossings.Santa Rosa, CA.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2002. Draft National Artificial Reef Plan Revision. Office ofConstituent Services, Silver Spring, MD. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/irf/NARP.PDF.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1995. Habitat Equivalency Analysis: AnOverview. Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, U.S. Department of Commerce,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1997. Natural Resource Damage AssessmentGuidance Document: Scaling Compensatory Restoration Actions (Oil Pollution Act of 1990).NOAA Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, Silver Spring, MD.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2000. Habitat Equivalency Analysis: AnOverview. Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, NOAA Restoration Center, SilverSpring, MD.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and Boundaries. Committee onCharacterization of Wetlands, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 308 p.

National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act.Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Native Fish Conservancy. 2002. Migratory Fish Restoration and Passage on the SusquehannaRiver. Native Fish Conservancy. Available at: http://www.nativefish.org/Articles/Migratory-Fish-Restoration.htm.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1998a. Conservation Practice Standard: WetlandRestoration, Code 657. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., Aug.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1998b. Conservation Practice Standard: WetlandCreation, Code 658. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Aug.

References

6-19

Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2000. Vegetation Restoration Recommendations:Bottom-Land Hardwood Forests. Wetland Restoration Information Series Number 1.

Nature Conservancy see The Nature Conservancy.

Neander, J. 2002. Personal communication from Neander (California Environmental ResourcesEvaluation System) to L. Urquidi (Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL).

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2000. “Fact Sheet for a Draft NJPDESPermit Including Section 316(a) Variance Determination and Section 316(b) Decision, PermitNo. NJ0005622.” Division of Water Quality.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2002. Frequently Asked QuestionsRegarding the Salem NJPDES Permit. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,Trenton, NJ. Available at: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/pdf/salemfaq.pdf.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Undated. Fact Sheet for a Draft NJPDESPermit Including Section 316(a) Variance Determination and Section 316(b) Decision. PermitNo. NJ0005622, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ. Available at:http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/pdf/factsht.pdf.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2002. A Look at DEC FishHatcheries. Albany, NY. Available at: http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/fish/99fish.htm.

Nixon, S.W., and C. Oviatt. 1973. “Ecology of a New England Salt Marsh.” EcologicalMonographs 43:463-498.

NJDEP − see New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

NMFS – see National Marine Fisheries Service.

NOAA – see National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Undated a. Broodstock Technology Needed to RestoreDepleted Pacific Salmon Stocks. NWFSC Issue Paper REUT 6202 (HQ ID 290). ResourceEnhancement and Utilization Technologies Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA.

Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Undated b. Developing Methods to Identify and ControlPathogenic Microorganisms that Threaten Fishery Resources. NWFSC Issue Paper REUT 6205(HQ ID 299). Resource Enhancement and Utilization Technologies Division, NorthwestFisheries Science Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA.

NRCS − see Natural Resources Conservation Service.

References

6-20

NWFSC − see Northwest Fisheries Science Center.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 1999. EPRI’s CompMech Suite of Modeling Tools forPopulation-Level Impact Assessment. Available at: http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/COMPMECH/brief.html. Accessed Oct. 10, 2002.

Odeh, M. 1999. “Fish Passage Innovation for Ecosystem and Fishery Restoration.” Pages 1-24in: Innovations in Fish Passage Technology. M. Odeh (ed.). American Fisheries Society,Bethesda, MD.

Odeh, M., J. Noreika, and A. Haro. 1995. Hydraulic Model Study of Little Falls Dam Passage.Final Report submitted to U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, MD, and U. S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, Baltimore District, Baltimore, MD. 79 pp.

Office of Technology Assessment. 1995. Fish Passage Technologies. Congress of the UnitedStates, Washington, D.C.

Ohio Legislative Service Commission. 2001. Fiscal Note and Local Impact Statement. 124thGeneral Assembly of Ohio, Columbus, OH.

Oldani, N.O., and C.R.M. Baigun. 2002. “Performance of a Fishway System in a Major SouthAmerican Dam on the Parana River (Argentina-Paraguay).” River Res. Applic. 18:171-183.

Olla, B.L., M.W. Davis, and C. H. Ryer. 1998. “Understanding How the Hatchery EnvironmentRepresses or Promotes the Development of Behavioral Survival Skills.” Bulletin of MarineSciences 62(2):531-550.

OLSC − see Ohio Legislative Services Commission.

ORNL − see Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Orth, R.J. 2002a. “VIMS field observations #2.” E-mail communication from Orth [email protected], May 2.

Orth, R.J. 2002b. “VIMS SAV field observations.” E-mail communication from Orth [email protected], April 23.

OTA – see Office of Technology Assessment.

Pastorok, R., and A. MacDonald. 1996. “Chapter 2. Ecological Planning Process for RestorationProjects.” In: Yozzo, D., J. Titre, and J. Sexton (eds.), Planning and Evaluating Restoration ofAquatic Habitats from an Ecological Perspective. IWR Report 96-EL-4, U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, VA.

References

6-21

Patterson, P. 2001. Cover letter with enclosure: NJPDES permit renewal for PSEG Nuclear LLC,Salem Generating Station. Division of Water Quality, New Jersey Department of EnvironmentalProtection. June 29.

Peacock, B. 2001. Habitat Equivalency Analysis: Conceptual Background and HypotheticalExample. National Park Service, Environmental Quality Division, Washington, DC.

Peake, S., R.S. McKinley, and D.A. Scruton. 1997. “Swimming Performance of VariousFreshwater Newfoundland Salmonids Relative to Habitat Selection and Fishway Design.”Journal of Fisheries Biology 51: 710-723.

Pearsons, T.N., and C.W. Hopley. 1999. “A Practical Approach for Assessing Ecological RisksAssociated with Fish Stocking Programs.” Fisheries 24(9):16-23.

Penn, T., and T. Tomasi. 2002. “Calculating Resource Restoration for an Oil Discharge in LakeBarre, Louisiana, USA.” Environmental Management 29(5):691–702.

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. Undated. Migratory Fish Restoration and Passage onthe Susquehanna River. Available at: http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Fish_Boat/migfishs.pdf

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. 2001. 2001 A Shad Odessey. Fact sheet. Available at:http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Fish_Boat/shad01.htm.

Perry, J.E., T.A. Barnard, Jr., J.G. Bradshaw, C.T. Friedrichs, K.J. Havens, P.A. Mason, W.I.Priest, III, and G.M. Silberhorn. 2001. “Creating Tidal Salt Marshes in the Chesapeake Bay.”Journal of Coastal Research 27:170-191.

Peven, C.M., and T.R. Mosey. 1999. “Development of Surface Bypass and Collection at RockyReach Dam, Columbia River.” Pages 79-92 in: Innovations in Fish Passage Technology.M. Odeh (ed.). American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

PFBC – see Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission.

Philippart, J.C. 1995. “Is Captive Breeding an Effective Solution for the Preservation of EndemicSpecies?” Biological Conservation 72(2):281-295.

Ploskey, G.R., and T.J. Carlson. 1999. “Comparison of Hydroacoustic and Net Estimates of FishGuidance Efficiency of an Extended Submersible Bar Screen at John Day Dam.” NorthAmerican Journal of Fisheries Management 19(4):1066-1079.

Polovina, J.J. 1991. “Evaluation of Hatchery Releases of Juveniles to Enhance Rockfish Stocks,with Application to Pacific-Ocean Perch Sebastes alutus.” Fishery Bulletin 89(1):129-136.

References

6-22

Poulakis, G.R., J.M. Shenker, and D.S. Taylor. 2002. “Habitat Use by Fishes after Reconnectionof an Impounded Estuarine Wetland in the Indian River Lagoon, Florida (USA).” WetlandsEcology and Management 10:51-69.

Press, D., D.F. Doak, and P. Steinberg. 1996. “The Role of Local Government in theConservation of Rare Species.” Conservation Biology 10(6):1538-1548.

PSEG – see Public Service Enterprise Group.

PSE&G – see Public Service Electric & Gas.

Public Service Electric & Gas. 1996a. “Estuary Enhancement Program, Fact Sheet No.3:Wetland Restoration.” Trenton, NJ.

Public Service Electric & Gas. 1996b. “Estuary Enhancement Program, Fact Sheet No. 6:Management Plans.” Trenton, NJ.

Public Service Electric & Gas. 1996c. “Estuary Enhancement Program, Fact Sheet No. 8:Public Participation.” Trenton, NJ.

Public Service Electric & Gas. 1999. Estuary Update, Spring 1999. Available at:http://www.pseg.com/companies/nuclear/estuary/newsletters/spring2000.pdf.

Public Service Enterprise Group. 1999a. Renewal Application for the Salem Generating Station,New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Renewal Application,Attachment G-2. Wetland Restoration Success. Newark, NJ.

Public Service Enterprise Group. 1999b. Renewal Application for the Salem Generating Station,New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Renewal Application,Attachment G-4. Bioenergetic Modeling of Restored and Reference Wetland Sites. Newark, NJ.

Public Service Enterprise Group. 2003. Fish Ladders Overview. Available at:http://www.pseg.com/companies/nuclear/estuary/fish_ladders/overview.html.

Race, M.S., and M.S. Fonseca. 1996. “Fixing Compensatory Mitigation: What It Will Take.”Ecological Applications 6(1):94-101.

RAE-ERF − see Restore America’s Estuaries-Estuarine Research Federation.

Rago, P.J. 1984. “Production Foregone: An Alternative Method for Assessing theConsequences of Fish Entrainment and Impingement Losses at Power Plants and Water Intakes.”Ecological Modelling 24:79-111.

Raposa, K. 2002. “Early Responses of Fishes and Crustaceans to Restoration of a TidallyRestricted New England Salt Marsh.” Restoration Ecology 10(4):665-676.

References

6-23

Raposa, K.B., and C.T. Roman. 2003. “Using Gradients in Tidal Restriction to Evaluate NektonCommunity Responses to Salt Marsh Restoration.” Estuaries 26(1):98-105.

Restore America’s Estuaries-Estuarine Research Federation. 1999. Principles of EstuarineHabitat Restoration, Working Together to Restore America’s Estuaries, Report on the RAE-ERFPartnership, Year One, September 1999. Available at: www.estuaries.org.

Richards, R.A., and P.J. Rago. 1999. “A Case History of Effective Fishery Management:Chesapeake Bay Striped Bass.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19(2):356-375.

Rivinoja, P., S. McKinnell, and H. Lindqvist. 2001. “Hindrances to Upstream Migration ofAtlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) in a Northern Swedish River Caused by a Hydroelectric Power-Station.” Regul. Rivers: Res. Mgmt. 17: 101-115.

Robb, J.T. 2001. Indiana Wetland Compensatory Mitigation: Area Analysis. Prepared by theIndiana Department of Environmental Management, Indianapolis, IN, for U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Region 5 Acquisition and Assistance Branch, Chicago, IL. 32pp.

Roman, C.T., K.B. Raposa. S. C. Adamowicz, M.J. James-Pirri, and J.G. Catena. 2002.“Quantifying Vegetation and Nekton Response to Tidal Restoration of a New England SaltMarsh.” Restoration Ecology 10(3):450-460.

Rountree, R.A., and K.W. Able. 1992. “Fauna of Polyhaline Subtidal Marsh Creeks in SouthernNew Jersey: Composition, Abundance and Biomass.” Estuaries 15(2):171-185.

Rountree, R.A., and K.W. Able. 1993. “Diel Variation in Decapod Crustacean and FishAssemblages in New Jersey Polyhaline Marsh Creeks.” Est. Coast. Shelf Sci. 37:181-201.

Rozas, L.P., and T.J. Minello. 2001. “Marsh Terracing as a Wetland Restoration Tool forCreating Fishery Habitat.” Wetlands 21(3): 327-341.

Rozas, L.P., and W.E. Odum. 1988. “Occupation of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation by Fishes:Testing the Roles of Food and Refuge.” Oecologia 77:101-106.

Rozas, L.P., C.C. McIvor, and W.E. Odum, 1988. “Intertidal Rivulets and Creekbanks: Corridorsbetween Tidal Creeks and Marshes.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 47:303-307.

Rulifson, R.A., and R.W. Laney. 1999. Striped Bass Stocking Programs in the United States:Ecological and Resource Management Issues. Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat ResearchDocument 99/007. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, Canada.

Sacco, J. 2002. Personal communication from Sacco (Harbor Spill Committee) to L. Urquidi(Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL).

References

6-24

Sale, M.J., G.F. Cada, L.H. Chang, S.W. Christensen, S.F. Railsback, J.E. Francfort,B.N. Rinehart, and G.L. Sommers. 1991. Environmental Mitigation at Hydroelectric Projects;Volume 1: Current Practices for Instream Flow Needs, Dissolved Oxygen, and Fish Passage.Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, and Idaho National EngineeringLaboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, for the U.S. Department of Energy, Assistant Secretary forConservation and Renewable Energy, Washington, D.C.

Savino, J.F., E.A. Marschall, and R.A. Stein. 1992. “Bluegill Growth as Modified by Plant StemDensity: An Exploration of Underlying Mechanisms.” Oecologia 89:153-160.

Sawhill, J.C. 1996. “Creating Biodiversity Partnerships: The Nature Conservancy Perspective.”Environmental Management 20(6):789-792.

Schoenbaum, T.J., and R. B. Stewart. 2002. “The Role of Mitigation and Conservation Measuresin Achieving Compliance with Environmental Regulatory Statutes: Lessons Learned fromSection 316 of the Clean Water Act.” N.Y. U. Environmental Law Journal 8:237-331.

Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 2002. The Optimization of Benefits from WetlandsRestoration, A Workshop. STAC Publication 01-001. Available at: http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/pubs/wrkshops/WetlandsReportWeb.pdf.

Seaman, W.J., Jr. 1997. “What if Everyone Thought About Artificial Reefs?” Fisheries22(4):4-5.

Seaman, W., Jr., and L.M. Sprague (eds.). 1991. Artificial Habitats for Marine and FreshwaterFisheries. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 285 pp.

Secor, D.H., and E.D. Houde. 1998. “Use of Larval Stocking in Restoration of Chesapeake BayStriped Bass.” ICES Journal of Marine Sciences 55(2):228-239.

Sheehan, R.J., and J.L. Rasmussen. 1993. “Large Rivers.” Chapter 19, pp. 445-468 in: InlandFisheries Managment in North America. C.C. Kohler and W.A. Hubert (eds.). AmericanFisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. pp. 445-468.

Sherman, R.L., D.S. Gilliam, and R.E. Spieler. 2002. “Artificial Reef Design: Void Space,Complexity, and Attractants.” ICES Journal Marine Science 59:S196-S200.

Shisler, J.K. 1989. “Creation and Restoration of Coastal Wetlands of the Northeastern UnitedStates.” Pages 145-165 in: Wetlands Creation and Restoration. The Status of the Science.Report EPA 600/3-89/038A, Vol. 1. J.A. Kusler and M.E. Kentula (eds.). U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.

Simenstad, C.A., and R. M Thom. 1996. “Functional Equivalency Trajectories of the RestoredGog-Le-Hi-Te Estuarine Wetland.” Ecological Applications 6(1):38-56.

References

6-25

Simenstad, C.A., W.G. Hood, R.M. Thom, D.A. Levy, and D.L. Bottom. 2000. “LandscapeStructure and Scale Constraints on Restoring Estuarine Wetlands for Pacific Coast JuvenileFishes. In: Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology. M.P. Weinstein andD.A. Kreeger (eds.). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.

Slatick, E. 1975. “Laboratory Evaluation of a Denil-Type Steeppass Fishway with VariousEntrance and Exit Conditions for Passage of Adult Salmonids and American Shad.” MarineFisheries Review 37(9):17-26.

Slatick, E., and L.R. Basham. 1985. “The Effect of Denil Fishway Length on Passage of SomeNonsalmonid Fishes.” Marine Fisheries Review 47(1):83-85.

Smith, R.K., and R.A. Bleistine. 2002. “The Lower Susquehanna River: Shad, Eagles, andWildflowers.” Hydro Review May 2002:SR12-SR15.

Society of Wetlands Scientists. 2001. “Position Paper on Performance Standards for WetlandRestoration and Creation.” Society of Wetland Scientists Bulletin 18(4):21-23.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1997. “SAFMC Policy for Protection andEnhancement of Marine Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Habitat.” Appendix 2 in: AtlanticCoastal Submerged Aquatic Vegetation: A Review of its Ecological Role, AnthropogenicImpacts, State Regulation, and Value to Atlantic Coastal Fish Stocks. C.D. Stephan andT.E. Bigford (eds.). Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Habitat ManagementSeries #1.

Southern California Edison. 2000. Marine Fish Hatchery. Available at: http://www.sce.com/sc3/006_about_sce/006b_generation/006b1_songs/006b1c_env_prot/006b1c3_so.

Southern Division AFS Reservoir Committee. 2000. Habitat Manual for Use of ArtificialStructures in Lakes and Reservoirs. Available at: http://www.sdafs.org/reservor/manuals/habitat/main.htm

STAC − see Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee.

Stafford, C.P., and T.A. Haines. 1997. “Mercury Concentrations in Maine Sport Fishes.”Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126(1):144-152.

Steig, T.W., and R. Adeniyi. 1999. “Hydroacoustic Evaluation of Fish Passage through aPrototype Surface Bypass Collector at Rocky Reach Dam.” Pages 93-104 in: Innovations in FishPassage Technology. M. Odeh (ed.). American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Steimle, F.W., and M.H. Meier. 1997. “What Information Do Artificial Reef Managers ReallyWant from Fishery Science?” Fisheries 22(4):6-8.

References

6-26

Stephens, J., Jr., and D. Pondella II. 2002. “Larval Productivity of a Mature Artificial Reef: TheIchthyoplankton of King Harbor, California, 1974-1997.” ICES Journal Marine Science 59:S51-S58.

Stephens, J.S., Jr., P.A. Morris, D.J. Pondella, T.A. Koonce, and G.A. Jordan. 1994. “Overviewof the Dynamics of an Urban Artificial Reef Fish Assemblage at King Harbor, California, USA,1974-1991: A Recruitment-Driven System.” Bulletin of Marine Science 55(2-3):1224-1239.

Stickney, R.R. 1994. “Use of Hatchery Fish in Enhancement Programs.” Fisheries 19(5):6-13.

Strange, E., H. Galbraith, S. Bickel, D. Mills, D. Melton, and J. Lipton. 2002. “DeterminingEcological Equivalence in Service-to-Service Scaling of Salt March Restoration.” EnvironmentalManagement 29(2):290-300.

Sullivan, G. 2001. “Establishing Vegetation in Restored and Created Coastal Wetlands.”Chapter 4 in: Handbook for Restoring Tidal Wetlands. J. Zedler (ed.). CRC Press, Boca Rotan,FL.

Swamy, V., P.E. Fell, M. Body, M. Keaney, M. Nyaku, E. McIlvain, and A. Keen. 2002.“Macroinvertebrate and Fish Populations in a Restored Impounded Salt Marsh 21 Years after theReestablishment of Tidal Flooding.” Environmental Management 29(4):516-530.

SWS: see Society of Wetland Scientists.

Szabo, R., and H. Bleichfeld. 1998. ISTEA Amendment May Spur Wetlands Mitigation Banking.Van Ness Feldman, P.C., Natural Resource Articles. Available at: http://www.vnf.com/content/Articles/Articles/artrgs1.htm.

Tampa Bay Estuary Program. 2000. A Summary of Seagrass Coverage Data for Tampa Bay.Prepared by Janicki Environmental, Inc. for the Tampa Bay Estuary Program, Saint Petersburg,FL. May. Available at: http://www.tbeptech.org/html/SG2000.htm.

Teal, J.M. 1962. “Energy Flow in the Salt Marsh Ecosystem of Georgia.” Ecology 43:614-624.

Teal, J.M., and M.P. Weinstein. 2002. “Ecological Engineering, Design, and ConstructionConsiderations for Marsh Restorations in Delaware Bay, USA.” Ecological Engineering18:607-618.

Teo, S.L.H., and K.W. Able. 2003. “Growth and Production of the Mummichog (Fundulusheteroclitus) in a Restored Salt Marsh.” Estuaries 26(1):51-63.

Texas Parks and Wildlife. 2002. Artificial Reefs–Rigs to Reefs. Available at: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/fish/reef/artreef.htm.

References

6-27

Thayer, G.W., H.H. Stuart, W.J. Kenworthy, J.F. Ustach, and A.B. Hall. 1978. “Habitat Valuesof Salt Marshes, Mangroves, and Seagrasses for Aquatic Organisms.” Pages 235-247 in:Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding. Proceedings of the NationalSymposium on Wetlands. P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark and J.E. Clark (eds.). American WaterResearch Association.

Thayer, G.W., M.S. Fonseca, and J.W. Kenworthy. 1997. Ecological Value of Seagrasses: ABrief Summary for the ASMFC Habitat Committee’s SAV Subcommittee.” Pages 7-12 in:Atlantic Coastal Submerged Aquatic Vegetation: A Review of Its Ecological Role, AnthropogenicImpacts, State Regulation, and Value to Atlantic Coastal Fish Stocks. C.D. Stephan andT.E. Bigford (eds.). Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Habitat ManagementSeries #1.

The Nature Conservancy. 2000. Press Release. Dec. 21. Available at: http://nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/tennessee/press/press168.html.

The Nature Conservancy. 2001. The Nature Conservancy Wins New Funding for Acquisitionand Management of Zumwalt Prairie Preserve.” Press Release. Oct. 18. Available at:http://nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/oregon/press/press433.html

The Nature Conservancy. 2002. “The Nature Conservancy Partners with New York State toProtect 44,650 Acres. $9.1 Million for Largest-Ever Conservancy Land Acquisition in NewYork.” Press Release. June 10. Available at: http://nature.org/pressroom/press/press673.html

Thom, R. 1996. “Goal Setting and Adaptive Management.” Pages 4-1-4-20 in: Planning andEvaluating Restoration of Aquatic Habitats from an Ecological Perspective. D. Yozzo, J. Titreand J. Sexton (eds.). Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS.

Tobler, W.R. 1970. “A Computer Movie Simulating Urban Growth in the Detroit Region.”Economic Geographer 46:234-240.

Travis, J., F.C. Coleman, C.B. Grimes, D. Conover, T.M. Bert, and M. Tringali. 1998. “CriticallyAssessing Stock Enhancement: An Introduction to the Mote Symposium.” Bulletin MarineScience 62(2): 305-311.

Tucker, B. 1999. Stocking Fish as a Management Tool? Alabama Department of Conservationand Natural Resources, Spanish Fort, AL. Available at: http://www.dcnr.state.al.us/agfd/FNAStocking.html.

Tugend, K., M.S. Allen, and M. Webb. 2002. “Use of Artificial Habitat Structures in U.S. Lakesand Reservoirs: A Survey from the Southern Division AFS Reservoir Committee.” Fisheries27(5): 22-27.

References

6-28

Tupper, M., and K.W. Able. 2000. “Movements and Food Habits of Striped Bass (Moronesaxatilis) in Delaware Bay (USA) Salt Marshes: Comparison of a Restored and a ReferenceMarsh.” Marine Biology 137(5/6):1049-1058.

USACE – see U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

USDA – see U.S. Department of Agriculture.

USDOI – see U.S. Department of the Interior.

USEPA – see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

USFWS – see U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

USGS – see U.S. Geologic Survey.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1996. “Interagency Compensatory Wetland MitigationAgreement.” Hackensack Meadowlands District, NJ. Dec.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1998. Informational Notice: Mitigation Guidelines andRequirements. Chicago District, Chicago, IL. April 30.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2001. Guidance for the Establishment and Maintenance ofCompensatory Mitigation Projects under the Corps Regulatory Program Pursuant to Section404(a) of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the River and Harbors Act of 1899. RegulatoryGuidance Letter, Oct. 31.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002a. Columbia River Basin–Dams and Salmon: AdultFishways at the Dams. Fact sheet available at: https://www.nwd.usace.army.mil/ps/ fishway.htm.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002b. “Fish Management Division USACE NorthwesternDivision Homepage.” Available at: https://www.nwd.usace.army.mil/ps/welcome.htm.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002c. Columbia River Basin–Dams and Salmon: Juvenile FishPassage at the Dams. Fact sheet available at: https://www.nwd.usace.army.mil/ps/juvefish.htm.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002d. Columbia River Basin–Dams and Salmon: Juvenile FishTransportation Program. Fact sheet available at: https://www.nwd.usace.army.mil/ps/juvetran.htm.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002e. Pacific Salmon Coordination Office, Columbia RiverBasin - Dams and Salmon Research: Anadromous Fish Evaluation Program. USACENorthwestern Division. Available at: http://www.nwd.usace.army.mil/ps/research.htm.

References

6-29

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002f. The Dalles/John Day/Willow Creek Project. PortlandDistrict, WA. Available at: https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/op/D/ standard/jd/fish/jd_fish.htm.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1980. Habitat Evaluation Procedures. Fish and WildlifeService, Division of Ecological Services, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2002. Endangered Fish Passage Project at the Grand ValleyProject Diversion Dam and Fish Screen in the Government Highline Canal, DraftEnvironmental Assessment. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Western ColoradoArea Office, Grand Junction, CO.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Draft Framework for Watershed-Based Trading.EPA 800-R-96-001, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Guidance for Evaluating the Adverse Impact ofCooling Water Intake Structures on the Aquatic Environment: Section 316(b). P.L. 92-500 at 15(draft May 1, 1977, 1977 Guidance), Permit Division, Office of Water Enforcement,Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment,EPA/630/R-95/002F. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001a. Draft Initial Cost Estimates Prepared for theMay 23, 2001 Public Meeting of Technical Experts to Review EPA’s Preliminary Data onCooling Water Intake Structure Technologies in Place at Existing Facilities and Their Costs.Office of Science and Technology, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001b. National Estuary Program Profiles: List ofPrograms. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/list.htm. (Updated June 22, 2001).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002a. Economic and Benefits Analysis for the ProposedSection 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule. Report EPA-821-R-02-001. Office of Water,Washington D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002b. Return of the Natives: Restoring Fish Runs onthe Blackstone River. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002c. “40 CFR Parts 9, et al., National PollutantDischarge Elimination System - Proposed Regulations to Establish Requirements for CoolingWater Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities: Proposed Rule.” Federal RegisterVol. 67, No. 68, pp. 17122–17170, April 9.

References

6-30

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. “National Pollutant Discharge EliminationSystem – Proposed Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structuresat Phase II Existing Facilities; Notice of Data Availability; Proposed Rule.” Federal Register,Part IV, 40 CFR Part 125, March 19.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency et al. 1995. “Federal Guidance for the Establishment,Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks.” Federal Register, Vol. 60, p. 58605, Nov. 28.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002a. Recovery of Upper Colorado River Basin Fish. UpperColorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, Lakewood, CO. Available at: http://www.r6.fws.gov/coloradoriver/Crrphtc1.htm.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002b. National Fish Hatchery System. Washington, D.C.Available at: http://fisheries.fws.gov/FWSFH/NFHSintro.htm.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002c. FWS FY 2003 Budget Proposal. Division of Budget,Washington, D.C. Available at: http://budget.fws.gov/FY%202003%20GB/06.02%hatchery%20ops&main.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002d. National Fish Hatcheries. Division of the National FishHatcheries, Washington, D.C. Available at: http://fisheries.fws.gov/FWSFH/NFH.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002e. National Fish Passage Program. Available at:http://fisheries.fws.gov/FWSMA/FishPassage/index.htm.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002f. Tahuya River (WRIA 15-0470), WA. Region 1, Portland,OR. Available at: http://fisheries.fws.gov/FWSMA/FishPassage/region1.htm.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002g. Honobia Creek at Bridge Six, OK. Region 2,Albuquerque, NM. Available at: http://fisheries.fws.gov/FWSMA/FishPassage/region2.htm.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002h. East Machias River, ME. Region 5, Albuquerque, NM.Available at: http://fisheries.fws.gov/FWSMA/FishPassage/region5.htm.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002i. Rains Mills Dam Removal, Little River–Neuse Basin, NC.Region 4, Atlanta, GA. Available at: http://fisheries.fws.gov/FWSMA/FishPassage/region4.htm.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002j. Merritt Island Dike Removal, FL. Region 4, Atlanta, GA.Available at: http://fisheries.fws.gov/FWSMA/FishPassage/region4.htm.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002k. Improving the River Habitat. Upper Colorado RiverEndangered Fish Recovery Program, Lakewood, CO. Available at: http://www.r6.fws.gov/coloradoriver/Index.htm.

References

6-31

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program:Helping States Conserve Their Coastal Wetlands. Division of Fish and Wildlife Managementand Habitat Restoration, Arlington, Virginia. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/cep/cwgcover.html.

Veil, J.A. 1997. The Feasibility of Effluent Trading in the Energy Industries. Prepared byArgonne National Laboratory for U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. May.

Veil, J. 1998. “The Potential for Effluent Trading in the Energy Industries.” EnvironmentalScience and Policy 1:39-49.

VIMS − see Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

Virginia Institute of Marine Science. 2002. Bay Grasses (SAV) in Chesapeake Bay. VIMS SAVMapping Lab. Available at: http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/.

Virginia Marine Resources Commission. 1998. Guidelines for the Establishment, Use, andOperation of Tidal Wetland Mitigation Banks in Virginia. Developed jointly by the VirginiaMarine Resources Commission and Virginia Institute of Marine Science under Virginia CoastalResources Management Program Grant CZM97-429-1.

Vivian-Smith, G. 2001. “Developing a Framework for Restoration.” Chapter 2 in: Handbook forRestoring Tidal Wetlands. J. Zedler (ed.). CRC Press, Boca Rotan, FL.

VMRC − see Virginia Marine Resources Commission.

Wainright, S.C., M.P. Weinstein, K.W. Able, and C.A. Currin. 2000. “Relative Importance ofBenthic Macroalgae, Phytoplankton and the Detritus of Smooth Cordgrass (Spartina) and theCommon Reed (Phragmites) to Brackish Marsh Food Webs.” Marine Ecology Progress Series200:77-91.

Walters, C.J., and C.S. Holling. 1990. “Large-Scale Management Experiments and Learning byDoing.” Ecology 71:2060-2068.

Waples, R.S. 1999. “Dispelling Some Myths about Hatcheries.” Fisheries 24(2):12-21.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1997. WDFW Hatcheries Program Statistics.Available at: http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hat/hat-stat.htm.

Wattendorf, B. 2002. Freshwater Fisheries Updates: Florida’s Fish Hatcheries. Florida Fish andWildlife Conservation Commission, Division of Freshwater Fisheries, Tallahassee, FL.Available at: http://floridafisheries.com/updates/hatchlbr.html.

Weinstein, M.P. 1979. “Shallow Marsh Habitats as Primary Nurseries for Fishes and Shellfish,Cape Fear River, North Carolina.” Fisheries Bulletin 77:339-357.

References

6-32

Weinstein, M.P. 1998. “What Begets Success?” in: Wetlands Engineering and River Restoration.Proc. Amer. Soc. Civil Engin. Conf. D.F. Hayes (ed.). March 22-28, Denver, CO.

Weinstein, M.P., and D.A. Kreeger. 2000. Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology.Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.

Weinstein, M.P., J.H. Balletto, J.M. Teal, and D.F. Ludwig. 1997. “Success Criteria andAdaptive Management for a Large-Scale Wetland Restoration Project.” Wetlands Ecology andManagement 4(2):111-127.

Weinstein, M.P., K.R. Phillipp, and P. Goodwin. 2000a. “Catastrophes, Near-Catastrophes andthe Bounds of Expectation: Success Criteria for Macroscale Marsh Restoration. In: Concepts andControversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology. M.P. Weinstein and D.A. Kreeger (eds.). KluwerAcademic Publishers, Norwell, MA. 875 p.

Weinstein, M.P., S.Y. Litvin, K.I. Bosley, C.M. Fuller, and S.C Wainright. 2000b. “The Role ofTidal Salt Marsh as an Energy Source for Juvenile Marine Transient Finfishes: A Stable IsotopeApproach.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129:797-810.

Weinstein, M.P., J.M. Teal, J.H. Balletto, and K.A. Strait. 2001. “Restoration PrinciplesEmerging from one of the World's Largest Tidal Marsh Restoration Projects.” Wetlands Ecologyand Management 9:387-407.

White, P.S., and J.L. Walker. 1997. “Approximating Nature’s Variation: Selecting and UsingReference Information in Restoration Ecology.” Restoration Ecology 5:338-349.

Whitney, R.R., L.D. Calvin, M.W. Erho, Jr., and C.C. Coutant. 1997. Downstream Passage forSalmon at Hydroelectric Projects in the Columbia River Basin: Development, Installation, andEvaluation. Prepared for the Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, OR.

Wieringa, M., and A. Morton. 1996. “Hydropower, Adaptive Management, and Biodiversity.”Environmental Management 20:831-840.

Wilding, T.A., and M.D.J. Sayer. 2002. “Evaluating Artificial Reef Performance: Approaches toPre- and Post-Deployment Research.” ICES Journal Marine Science 59:S222-S230.

Wilhere, G.F. 2002. “Adaptive Management in Habitat Conservation Plans.” ConservationBiology 16(1):20-29.

Wilkey, P., R. Sundell, K. Bailey, and D. Hayes. 1994. Wetland Mitigation Banking for the Oiland Gas Industry: Assessment, Conclusions, and Recommendations. Report ANL/ESD/TM-63.Argonne National laboratory, Argonne, IL.

References

6-33

Will, T.A., T.R. Reinert, and C.A. Jennings. 2002. “Maturation and Fecundity of a Stock-Enhanced Population of Striped Bass in the Savannah River Estuary, U.S.A.” Journal ofFisheries Biology 60:532-544.

Willenborg, P.M. 1999. Potomac Electric Power Company 1998 Aquaculture Project. PotomacElectric Power Company, Natural Resources Management Development, Washington, D.C. Jan.

Wilson, J., C.W. Osenberg, C.M. St. Mary, C.A. Watson, and W. J. Lindberg. 2001. “ArtificialReefs, the Attraction-Production Issue, and Density Dependence in Marine Ornamental Fishes.”Aquarium Sciences and Conservation 3:95-105.

Wyda, J.C., L.A. Deegan, J.E. Hughes, and M.J. Weaver. 2002. “The Response of Fishes toSubmerged Aquatic Vegetation Complexity in Two Ecoregions of the Mid-Atlantic Bight:Buzzards Bay and Chesapeake Bay.” Estuaries 25(1):86-100.

Zabel, R.W., and J.G. Williams. 2002. “Selective Mortality in Chinook Salmon: What Is theRole of Human Disturbance?” Ecological Applications 12(1):173-183.

Zajac, R.N., and R.B. Whitlatch. 2001. “Response of Macrobenthic Communities to RestorationEfforts in an New England Estuary.” Estuaries 24(2):167-183.

Zedler, J.B. 1993. “Canopy Architecture of Natural and Planted Cordgrass Marshes: SelectingHabitat Evaluation Criteria.” Ecological Applications 3:136-138.

Zedler, J.B. 2001. “Introduction.” Chapter 1 in: Handbook for Restoring Tidal Wetlands.J. B. Zedler (ed.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Zedler, J.B., G.D. Williams, and J.S. Desmond. 1997. “Wetland Mitigation: Can FishesDistinguish between Natural and Constructed Wetlands?” Fisheries 22:26-28.

Zieman, R.C., and R.T. Zieman. 1989. The Ecology of the Seagrass Meadows of the West Coastof Florida: A Community Profile. Biological Report 85(7-25). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Washington, D.C. 155 pp.

Zimmerman, R.J., T.J. Minello, and L.P. Rozas. 2000. “Salt Marsh Linkages to Productivity ofthe Penaeid Shrimps and Blue Crabs in the Northern Gulf of Mexico.” In: Concepts andControversies in Tidal Mash Ecology. M.P. Weinstein and D.A. Kreeger (eds.). KluwerAcademic Publishers, Norwell, MA.

Zohar, Y., H. Perry, D. Eggleston, A. Hines, and R. Lipcius. 2003. The Blue Crab, Callinectessapidus: An Integrated Research Program of Basic Biology, Hatchery Technologies and thePotential for Replenishing Stocks. Chesapeake Bay Fisheries Research Program Annual Report,presented at Research Project Symposium, March 24, pp 115-224.

A-1

A APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, TOOLS,AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

A.1 Technical Information and Reports

Atlantic Coastal Submerged Aquatic Vegetation: A Review of its Ecological Role, AnthropogenicImpacts, State Regulation, and Value to Atlantic Coastal Fish Stocks. Stephan, C.D., andT.E. Bigford (editors). 1997. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Habitat ManagementSeries #1. Available at: http://www.asmfc.org/Programs/Habitat/sav.pdf

Bay Grasses (SAV) in Chesapeake Bay. VIMS SAV Mapping Lab. 2002. Backgroundinformation on SAV, program description, and data from the SAV Restoration Program at theVirginia Institute of Marine Science. Available at: http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/

Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Water Quality and Habitat-Based Requirementsand Restoration Targets: A Second Technical Synthesis. 2000, Chesapeake Bay Program,Annapolis Maryland. Available at: http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/sav/index.html

Compensating for Wetland Losses under the Clean Water Act. National Research Council. 2001.Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Creating Freshwater Wetlands. 1992. Hammer, D. Lewis Publishers.

Draft National Artificial Reef Plan Revision. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2002. Office ofConstituent Services, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland, February.Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/irf/NARP.PDF

European Artificial Reef Research Network. General information about the aims and activities ofthe European Artificial Reef Research Network. Available at: http://www.soes.soton.ac.uk/research/groups/EARRN/main.html

Evaluating Fishing Gear Impacts to Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Determining MitigationStrategies. ASMFC Habitat Management Series # 5, Atlantic States Marine FisheriesCommission. 2000. Available at: http://www.asmfc.org/PUB/Habitat/Gear%20Impacts%20Report.pdf

Technical Assistance, Tools, and Additional Information

A-2

Fisheries Technologies for Developing Countries. National Research Council. 1988. Office ofInternational Affairs, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington,D.C. Chapter 3 is called Artificial Reefs and Fish Aggregating Devices. Available at:http://books.nap.edu/books/0309037883/html/85.html#pagetop

Lake Erie’s Artificial Reef Program. Ohio Sea Grant College Program, 1997. Ohio StateUniversity, Columbus, Ohio. Fact sheet about artificial reefs constructed in Lake Erie between1984 and 1989 by the Ohio Sea Grant College Program. Contains information about why andhow they were constructed in Lake Erie and the results of biological and economic researchconducted on the artificial reefs. Available at: http://www.sg.ohio-state.edu/pdfs/fs-021.pdf

Mitigation Technical Guidance for Chesapeake Bay Wetlands. 1994. Eckles, S., T. Barnard,F. Dawson, T. Goodger, K. Kimidy, A. Lynn, J. Perry, K. Reisinger, C. Rhodes, and R. Zepp.Prepared for Living Resources Subcommittee, Chesapeake Bay Restoration Program,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Proceedings from the Second Annual Public Workshop for the SONGS Mitigation Project,February 27, 2002, San Clemente Community Center, San Clemente, California. Reed, D.,S. Schroeter, and M. Page (editors). 2002. Report submitted to the California CoastalCommission. April 3, 2002. Information about mitigation efforts for the San Onofre NuclearGenerating Station (SONGS), including the development and monitoring of an artificial kelpreef. Available at: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/energy/songs-workshop-mm2.pdf]

Sport Fish Restoration Administrative Program. 2001 Artificial Reef Activities. Description ofthe Sport Fish Restoration Program’s involvement in artificial reef activities. Available at:http://www.gsmfc.org/wba_r.html

Wetlands: Characteristics and Boundaries. National Research Council. 1995. Committee onCharacterization of Wetlands, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 308 p.

A.2 Regional and National Agencies, Programs, and OrganizationsRelated to Environmental Enhancements

California Department of Fish and Game, Native Anadromous Fish and Watershed Branch:http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nafwb/

Chesapeake Bay Program Office: http://www.chesapeakebay.net/fishpass.htm

Connecticut River Watershed Council, Inc., One Ferry Street, Easthampton, MA, 01027.

The Conservation Fund: http://www.conservationfund.org

Ducks Unlimited: http://www.ducks.org/


A-3

Everglades Trust: http://www.saveoureverglades.org/index.html

Great Lakes Fishery Trust: http://www.glft.org

Jefferson Land Trust: http://www.saveland.org/

Leetown Science Center, S.O. Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center: http://www.lsc.usgs.gov/cafl/lsc-afl.htm

Long Bay Artificial Reef Association. Description of the Long Bay Artificial Reef Associationprogram, including program history, reef locations, materials, and costs available at:http://www.lbara.com/index.html

National Conservation Training Center, training course in fish passageways and bypass facilities:http://www.nctc.fws.gov/catalog/fis2111.html

National Fish Passage Program, Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service: http://fisheries.fws.gov/FWSMA/FishPassage/index.htm

The Nature Conservancy: http://www.nature.org/

San Diego Oceans Foundation. Artificial Reef Monitoring Program. The Artificial ReefMonitoring Project uses research diving to deploy, monitor, and enhance artificial reefs in theSan Diego area. A description of the project and monitoring methods are accessible at:http://www.sdoceans.org/arti_reef.htm

Save the Dunes Council: http://www.savedunes.org/

Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy: http://www.appalachian.org/

Tampa Bay Estuary Program: http://www.tampabaywatch.org/seagrass.htm

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program: http://www.r6.fws.gov/coloradoriver/Index.htm

Wilderness Land Trust: http://www.wildernesslandtrust.org/

World Wildlife Fund: http://www.wwf.org/

A.3 Regional and National Guidelines, Manuals, and Tools

A Guide to Wetland Funcitonal Design. 1992. Marble, A.D. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

American Rivers Dam Removal Toolkit. Available at: http://www.americanrivers.org (go toResource Center, then Dam Removal Toolkit)


A-4

An Introduction and User’s Guide to Wetland Restoration, Creation, and Enhancement.Undated. Interagency Workgroup on Wetland Restoration.

California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual, 3rd Edition, California Department ofFish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Sacramento, CA. 1998. Available athttp://www.dfg.ca.gov/nafwb/

Fish Passage Barrier and Surface Water Diversion Screening Assessment and PrioritizationManual, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 2000 Available at:http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/ahg/

Fish Passage Design at Road Culverts, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia,WA 1999. Available at: http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/ahg/culverts.htm

Fishway Guidelines for Washington State, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Olympia, WA. 2000. Available at: http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/ahg/fishways.htm

FishXing: Software and Learning Systems for Fish Passage Through Culverts: http://www.stream.fs.feed/fishxing

Guidelines for Evaluating Fish Passage Technologies, American Fisheries SocietyBioengineering Section, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 2000. Available at:http://biosys.bre.orst.edu/afseng/fish_pass_comm.htm

Guidelines for Minimizing Entrainment and Impingement of Aquatic Organisms at MarineIntakes in British Columbia. Fedorenko, A.Y., Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries andAquatic Sciences No. 2098. 1991.

Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream Crossings, National Marine Fisheries Service,Santa Rosa, CA. 2000

Guidelines for the Conservation and Restoration of Seagrasses in the United States and AdjacentWaters. Fonseca, M.S., W.J. Kenworthy, and G.W. Thayer. Decision Analysis Series No. 12,National Atmospheric and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Ocean Program, Silver Spring,MD. 1998. Available at: http://shrimp.bea.nmfs.gov/library/digital.html]

Habitat Manual for Use of Artificial Structures in Lakes and Reservoirs. Southern DivisionAmerican Fisheries Society Reservoir Committee. 2000. Available at: http://www.sdafs.org/reservor/manuals/habitat/main.htm

Handbook for Restoring Tidal Wetlands. Zedler, J.B. (ed.). 2001. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Oregon Road/Stream Crossing Restoration Guide. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,Spokane, WA. 1999. Available at: http://www.4sos.org/wssupport/ws_rest/OregonRestGuide/


A-5

Principles for the Ecological Restoration of Aquatic Resources. Report EPA841-F-00-003.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 2000.

Principles of Estuarine Habitat Restoration, Working Together to Restore America’s Estuaries,Report on the RAE-ERF Partnership, Year One, September 1999. Restore America’s Estuaries-Estuarine Research Federation. 1999. Available at: www.estuaries.org.

Restoration Planning, Guidance Document for Natural Resource Damage Assessment Under theOil Pollution Act of 1990, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, DamageAssessment and Restoration Program, Northwest Region, Seattle, WA. 1996. Available at:http://www.darcnw.noaa.gov/opa.htm.

Stream Corridor Restoration, Principles, Processes, and Practices. Federal Interagency StreamRestoration Working Group. GPO Item No. 0120-A. 1998.

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Policy. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, ASMFCHabitat Management Series #3. 1997. Available at: http://www.asmfc.org/Programs/Habitat/savpolicy.pdf

A.4 Ecosystem Valuation

American Agricultural Economics Association. Available at: http://www.aaea.org/

Association of Environmental and Resource Economists. Available at: http://www.aere.org

International Society for Ecological Economics. Available at: http://www.ecologicaleconomics.org/

Ecological Economics Discussion Group Archives. Available at: http://csf.Colorado.EDU/mail/ecol-econ/

The Land and Resource Economics Network. Available at: http://www.ems.psu.edu/MnEc/resecon/

Environmental Economics Distance Learning Course. Available at: http://www-agecon.ag.ohio-state.edu/class/AEDE531D/Sohngen/ae531d/

Resources for the Future (RFF). Available at: http://www.rff.org/

EPA Economy and Environment. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oppe/eaed/home4.htm

National Center for Environmental Research and Quality Assurance (NCERQA). Available at:http://es.epa.gov/ncerqa


A-6

World Bank Environmental Economics and Indicators (EEI) – Environmental Valuation.Available at: http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/environment/EEI.nsf/all/Environmental+Valuation?OpenDocument

USDA Economic Research Service. Available at: www.ers.usda.gov/

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources. Available at: www.iwr.usace.army.mil/

Monetary Measurement of Environmental Goods and Services. Available at: www.iwr.usace.army.mil/iwr/pdf/96r24.pdf

National Environmental Data Index (NEDI). Available at: http://www.nedi.gov/

ENVALUE: A Searchable Environmental Valuation Database. Available at: http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/envalue/

Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory (EVRI). Available at: http://www.evri.ec.gc.ca/evri/

The Beijer Institute Discussion Papers. Available at: http://www.beijer.kva.se/publications/discussion/discussion_papers.html

NetEc. Available at: http://netec.wustl.edu/NetEc.html

Readings in the Field of Natural Resource & Environmental Economics. Available at:http://www.worldbank.org/nipr/readings/readings.pdf

National Library for the Environment Congressional Research Service Reports. Available at:http://cnie.org/NLE/CRS/

Agriculture Network Information Center. Available at: http://www.agnic.org/

NOAA/National Sea Grant Internet Resource for Coastal Environmental Economics. Availableat: http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/Extension/valuation/

Committee on the Human Dimensions of Recreational Fisheries. Available at: http://lutra.tamu.edu/hdrfish.htm

Centre for the Economics and Management of Aquatic Resources. Available at: http://www.port.ac.uk/departments/economics/cemare/

Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA) . Available at:http://www.eepsea.org/


A-7

Decision Making and Valuation for Environmental Policy. Available at: http://es.epa.gov/ncer/publications/workshop/nsf_epa.pdf

Valuing and Managing Ecosystems. Available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/EE/epa/eerm.nsf/vwSER/D6952626EAA2253F85256A3F005E77DC?OpenDocument

Valuation and Environmental Policy. Available at: http://es.epa.gov/ncerqa_abstracts/grants/95/valuation/

Economic Valuation of Environmental Benefits and the Targeting of Conservation Programs:The Case of the CRP. Available at: www.ers.usda.gov/publications/AER778/

Innovation in the Valuation of Ecosystems: A Forest Application. Available at:http://es.epa.gov/ncerqa_abstracts/grants/95/valuation/valrusse.html

Developing Conjoint Stated Preference Methods for Valuation of Environmental Resources.Available at: http://es.epa.gov/ncerqa_abstracts/grants/95/valuation/valopalu.html

Ecosystem Valuation: Policy Applications for the Patuxent Watershed Ecological-EconomicsModel. Available at: http://es.epa.gov/ncerqa_abstracts/grants/96/deci/geoghega.html

Updating Prior Methods for Non-Market Valuation. Available at: http://es.epa.gov/ncerqa_abstracts/grants/96/deci/herriges.html

Monetary Measurement of Environmental Goods and Services. Available at: www.iwr.usace.army.mil/iwr/pdf/96r24.pdf

Valuing Urban Wetlands: A Property Pricing Approach. Available at: www.iwr.usace.army.mil/iwr/pdf/97r01.pdf

The Demand For Fishing Licenses and the Benefits of Recreational Fishing. Available at:http://www.rff.org/disc_papers/abstracts/9733.htm

Investments in Biodiversity Prospecting and Incentives for Conservation. Available at:http://www.rff.org/disc_papers/PDF_files/9614.pdf

Valuation of Biodiversity for Use in New Product Research in a Model of Sequential Search.Available at: http://www.rff.org/disc_papers/PDF_files/9627.pdf

Wetland Creation in the Kävlinge River Catchment, Scania, South Sweden. Available at:http://www.beijer.kva.se/publications/pdf-archive/sl0326.pdf

Empirical Cost Equations for Wetland Creation. Available at: http://www.beijer.kva.se/publications/pdf-archive/wetcost0915.pdf


A-8

Values of the Hadejia-Nguru Wetlands. Available at: http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~jthompso/

The Economic Valuation of Mangroves: A Manual for Researchers. Available at:http://www.eepsea.org/publications/specialp2/ACF30C.html

The Economic Valuation of Tropical Forest Land Use Options: A Manual for Researchers.Available at: http://www.eepsea.org/publications/specialp2/toc.html

Evaluating Bintuni Bay: Some Practical Lessons in Applied Resource Valuation. Available at:http://www.eepsea.org/publications/specialp2/ACF2B0.html

Assessing Environmental Values: The Damage Schedule Approach. Available at:http://www.eepsea.org/publications/policybr3/ACF3B8.html

Sewage or Swimming? The Recreational Value of East Lake, Wuhan, China. Available at:www.eepsea.org/publications/policybr3/ACF3B2.html

Thailand’s National Parks: Making Conservation Pay. Available at: www.eepsea.org/publications/policybr3/ACF3BC.html

Economic Analysis of Indonesian Coral Reefs. Available at: http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/environment/

The Economic Value of Wetlands: Wetlands’ Role in Flood Protection in Western Washington.Available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/97100.html

Non-Market Economic User Values of the Florida Keys/Key West. Available at:http://cammp.nos.noaa.gov/

A.5 Professional Societies

American Fisheries Society: http://www.fisheries.org/

American Fisheries Society Bioengineering Section: http://biosys.bre.orst.edu/afseng/Default.htm

Society for Ecological Restoration: http://ser.org/

Society of Wetlands Ecologists: http://www.sws.org/

Southern Division American Fisheries Society Reservoir Committee: http://www.sdafs.org/reservor/manuals/habitat/main.htm


A-9

A.6 Scientific Journals

Aquaculture: Subscription information and access to back issues available at: http://www.fisheries.org/publications/journals/index.shtml

Bulletin of Marine Science: Subscription information and access to back issues available at:http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/bms/bms-intro.html

Canadian Journal of Aquatic Sciences(Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences):Subscription information and access to back issues available at: http://www.nrc.ca/cgi-bin/cisti/journals/rp/rp2_desc_e?cjfas

Conservation Biology: Subscription information and access to back issues available at:http://www.blackwellscience.com/journals/biology/index.html

Diseases of Aquatic Organisms: Subscription information and access to back issues available at:http://www.int-res.com/journals/dao/index.html

Ecological Applications: Subscription information available at: http://www.esapubs.org/esapubs/default.htm

Ecological Engineering: Subscription information and access to back issues available at:http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoleng/

Environmental and Resource Economics: Subscription information and access to back issuesavailable at: http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0924-6460/

Environmental Biology of Fishes: Subscription information and access to back issues availableat: http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0378-1909/

Environmental Management: Subscription information and access to back issues available at:http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00267/

Environmental Science and Policy: Subscription information and access to back issues availableat: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci/

Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science: Subscription information and access to back issuesavailable at: http://www.academicpress.com/ecss

Estuaries: Subscription information and access to back issues available at: http://estuaries.olemiss.edu/

Fisheries: Subscription information and access to back issues available at: http://www.fisheries.org/fisheries/fishery.shtml


A-10

Fisheries Management and Ecology: Subscription information and access to back issuesavailable at: http://www.blackwell-science.com/fme

Fishery Bulletin: Subscription information and access to back issues available at: http://fishbull.noaa.gov/

Hydrobiologia: Subscription information and access to back issues available at: http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0018-8158/

Journal of Ecology: Subscription information and access to back issues available at: http://www.blackwell-science.com/~cgilib/jnlpage.asp?Journal=jecol&File=jecol

Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology: Subscription information and access toback issues available at: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jembe

Journal of Fish Biology: Subscription information and access to back issues available at:http://www.academicpress.com/jfb

Journal of Great Lakes Research: Subscription information and access to back issues availableat: http://www.iaglr.org/jglr/journal.html

Journal of Wetlands Ecology (Wetlands Ecology and Management): Subscription informationand access to back issues available at: http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0923-4861

Journal of Wildlife Management: Subscription information and access to back issues available at:http://www.wildlife.org/publications/journal.htm

Marine Ecology Progress Series: Subscription information and access to back issues available at:http://www.int-res.com/journals/meps/

Marine Fisheries Review: Subscription information and access to back issues available at:http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov/index.htm

North American Journal of Aquaculture: Subscription information and access to back issuesavailable at: http://www.fisheries.org/publications/journals/index.shtml

North American Journal of Fisheries Management: Subscription information and access to backissues available at: http://www.fisheries.org/publications/journals/index.shtml

Ocean and Coastal Management: Subscription information and access to back issues availableat: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman/

Oecologia: Subscription information and access to back issues available at: http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00442/


A-11

Regulated Rivers: Research and Management: Subscription information and access to backissues available at: http://www.interscience.wiley.com/jpages/0886-9375/(Changed in 2002 to River Research and Applications: see below)

Restoration Ecology: Subscription information and access to back issues available at:http://www.blackwellscience.com/journals/ecology/index.html

River Research and Applications: Subscription information and access to back issues availableat: http://www.interscience.wiley.com/jpages/1535-1459/

Transaction of the American Fisheries Society: Subscription information and access to backissues available at: http://www.fisheries.org/publications/journals/index.shtml

Wetlands: Subscription information and access to back issues available at: http://www.sws.org/wetlands/

Wetlands Ecology and Management: Subscription information and access to back issuesavailable at: http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0923-4861/

B-1

B APPENDIX B: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following annotated bibliography of the recent literature on ecosystem restoration issues wascompiled from EPRI’s Quarterly Technical Newsletter. The bibliography covers the periodJanuary 2001 through March 2003. Papers are organized according to the following topics:

• General restoration issues• Artificial reefs• Fish passage and dam removal• Hatchery supplementation or stocking• Submerged aquatic vegetation• Wetland restoration• Miscellaneous restoration issues (e.g., beneficial use of dredged material, marine and

freshwater protected areas, channel and riparian area restoration)

Each of the following papers, along with the historical literature on restoration-related topics,was reviewed as part of preparation of this report.

General Restoration-Related Issues

The role of mitigation and conservation measures in achieving compliance withenvironmental regulatory statutes: lessons learned from Section 316 of the Clean WaterAct. Schoenbaum, T.J., and R.B. Stewart. 2002. N.Y.U. Environmental Law Journal 8: 237-331 – Authors conclude that recent claims by critics of mitigation measures that thislongstanding practice is unlawful, or unsound as a policy matter, are baseless. They furtherconclude that the concept of mitigation should be embraced by EPA in its current Section 316(b)rulemaking: In accordance with this analysis and conclusions in this article, and consistent withthe Administration’s commitment to regulatory flexibility and “common sense,” EPA’s section316(b) rule should affirm that use of enforceable conservation measures that meet the section316 criteria of environmental protection are lawful, and that such measures should be adoptedwhen they offer economic and/or environmental advantages over source-based alternatives,including technology controls.

Taking the long view of ocean ecosystems: historical science, marine restoration, and theOceans Act of 2000. Craig, R.K. 2002. Ecology Law Quarterly 29: 649-705 – This paperdiscusses how declines in marine ecosystem function and sustainability led to the passage of theOceans Act of 2000. The Ocean Act’s overall goal for the U.S. marine regulation is “acoordinated, comprehensive, and long-range national policy for the responsible use andstewardship of ocean and coastal resources for the benefit of the U.S.” New designated authoritywill be charged to regulate all uses of the ocean on an ecosystem basis. The author suggests that

Annotated Bibliography

B-2

the goal of the new authority should be to restore each marine ecosystem to a particular historicallevel of productivity, which is based on historical studies. The primary means of achieving suchrestoration he further suggests should be a system of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and marinereserves, with the agency or agencies using marine zoning to designate 10 to 20 percent of thenation’s marine waters off-limits to extractive uses. The author concludes that only by leavinglarge areas of the seas alone can we once again benefit from the ocean’s full ecological – andeconomic – productivity.

Quantifying natural resource injuries and ecological service reductions: challenges andopportunities. Barnthouse, L.W., and R.G. Stahl, Jr. 2002. Environmental Management 30(1):1-12 – This paper explores the scientific aspects of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment(NRDA) implementation and discusses conceptual and methodological relationships betweenNRDA and the much broader field of ecological risk assessment (ERA). The authors identify (1)scientific approaches drawn from ERA practice that could improve the NRDA approach, and (2)research needs and institutional changes that may improve the ability of the NRDA process toachieve its stated objectives.

Methods of modifying habitat to benefit the Great Lakes ecosystem. Kelso, J.R.M., andJ.H. Hartig. 1995. National Research Council of Canada: http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cgi-bin/rp/rp2_book_e?mlist4_145/ - This is a compilation of 47 methods of modifying habitat tobenefit the Great Lakes ecosystem. The information is intended to raise awareness of Canada-U.S. progress toward restoration objectives in the Great Lakes and describes methods forrehabilitating, restoring, enhancing, mitigating, or preserving habitat.

Spatial and temporal variation in estuarine fish and invertebrate assemblages: analysis ofan 11-year data set. Desmond, J.S., et al. 2002. Estuaries 25(4A): 552-569 – Protocols formonitoring wetland mitigation and restoration projects call for routine counts of animals, yetlong-term spatial and temporal patterns are rarely examined. Analysis of monitoring data fromthree southern California estuaries spanning 11 years, four seasons, and multiple stations withinthe estuaries revealed differences in spatiotemporal patterns between fish and invertebrates. Theauthors conclude that the influence of spatial and temporal factors on estuarine invertebrates andfish communities should be considered in planning monitoring programs for wetland mitigationor restoration sites.

The SER Primer on Ecological Engineering. Society for Ecological Restoration Science &Policy Working Group. 2002. Can be downloaded from www.ser.org/ - Chapters include:definition of ecological restoration; attributes of restored ecosystems; explanation of terms;reference ecosystems; exotic species; monitoring and evaluation; restoration planning;relationship between restoration practice and restoration ecology; relationship of restoration toother activities; and integration of ecological restoration into a larger program.

Reconciling ecosystem rehabilitation and service reliability mandates in large technicalsystems: findings and implications of three major U.S. ecosystem management initiativesfor managing human-dominated aquatic-terrestrial ecosystems. Roe, E., and M. van Eeten.2002. Ecosystems 5: 509-528 – Authors assess the role of adaptive management and identify


B-3

five areas of major innovation by which ecologists and the authorities that operate large waterand hydropower systems attempt to reconcile the tensions between maintaining service reliabilityand promoting ecological rehabilitation.

Functional variability of habitats within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: restorationimplications. Lucas, L.V., et al. 2002. Ecological Applications 12(5): 1528-1547 –Comparative study of existing habitats is one way ecosystem science can elucidate andpotentially minimize restoration uncertainties, by identifying processes shaping habitatfunctionality, including those that can be controlled in the restoration design.

Assessing recovery in a stream ecosystem: applying multiple chemical and biologicalendpoints. Adams, S.M., et al. 2002. Ecological Applications 12(5): 1510-1527 – Thecomplexity of aquatic systems and their variable recovery dynamics suggest that no singlemeasure is adequate for assessing aquatic ecosystem recovery and that a suite of chemical andbiological endpoints is required for a more complete understanding of ecosystem dynamics andstatus during both recovery and the post-disturbance periods.

Environmental Restoration – Ethics, Theory, and Practice. Throop, W. (Editor). 2000.Humanity Books, Amherst, New York. 240 pp. – This book includes case studies, scientific andtheoretical information on philosophical, scientific, legal, sociological, economic, and politicalenvironmental restoration issues.

Landscape conservation and restoration: moving to the landscape level. Hayes, D.J. 2002.Virginia Environmental Law Journal 21: 115-128 – David Hayes was Deputy Secretary inUSDOI during the Clinton Administration. This paper is a speech he gave at the University ofVirginia in 2000. He argues that a new movement that developed during the ClintonAdministration that focused on new conservation and restoration efforts needs to be acceleratedor advanced. Most importantly, that restoration needs to be focused at the landscape or watershedlevel.

On the market for ecosystem control. Johnston, J.S. 2002. Virginia Environmental LawJournal 21: 129-150 – This paper theorizes about alternate institutions for managingenvironmental controls. The author notes the limitations of the command and control approachand argues that the next generation of environmental and natural resource regulation willincreasingly view the private development of public resources as an instrument forenvironmental restoration.

The Economics of Nature: Managing Biological Assets. G. Cornelius van Kooten andE.H. Bulte. 2000. Blackwell Publishers Inc. Malden, MA - This textbook covers the economicsof ecosystem asset management. Chapters include consumer welfare measurement, producerwelfare and aggregation of well being, resource rents and rent capture, valuing nonmarketbenefits, evaluating natural resource policy, economic dynamics and renewable resourcemanagement, sustainable development and conservation, biological diversity and habitat, andendangered and threatened species.


B-4

Public support for ecosystem restoration in the Hudson River Valley, USA. Connelly, N.A.,et al. 2002. Environmental Management 29(4): 467-476 – As hypothesized by the authors, thebroad ecosystem restoration goals of the Hudson River Estuary Action Plan were more stronglysupported than the corresponding specific implementation actions. The authors found thatbeliefs and past behavior were better explanatory variables than sociodemographiccharacteristics for explaining people’s support for ecosystem restoration actions and willingness-to-pay for restoration and protection goals.

Principles of Estuarine Habitat Restoration: Working Together to Restore America’sEstuaries. Restore America’s Estuaries and the Estuarine Research Foundation. 1999. Reporton the RAE-ERF Partnership – Year One – September 1999. www.estuaries.org andhttp://erf.org – Report discusses current state of estuaries in the U.S., their stresses, challenges inprotection and restoration principles (planning, implementation, and design). Case examplerestoration projects presented include coastal wetlands in Maine, ecosystem restoration inDelaware Bay (Salem Project), the North Carolina Clean Water Trust Fund, and oysterrestoration in Virginia.

Resurrecting the dammed: a look at Colorado River restoration. Cohn, J.P. 2001.BioScience 51(12): 998-1003 – A review of ongoing restoration efforts in the Colorado RiverBasin, one of the most regulated river systems in the U.S.

Transferring economic values on the basis of an ecological classification of nature.Ruijgrok, E.C.M. 2001. Ecological Economics 39: 399-408 – The author investigated whetherit is possible to determine economic values for the elements of an ecological classification ofnature, which can be transferred from one location to another. He concludes that his resultsindicate that the use of an ecological classification may offer economists new opportunities fortransferring economic benefits within a limited geographic area.

Valuing estuarine resource services using economic and ecological models: the PeconicEstuary System Study. Johnston, R.J., et al. 2002. Coastal Management 30: 47-65.

Business incentives for sustainability: a property rights approach. Cerin, P., and L. Karlson.2002. Ecological Economics 40: 13-22 – Authors propose a concept for trading of product lifecycle (PLC) emission rights, based on property rights and transaction cost theories. Authorsbelieve that this will provide economic incentives to take an increased responsibility forinformation flow as well as for product innovations.

Design principles for ecological engineering. Bergen, S.D. et al. 2001. EcologicalEngineering 18: 201-210 – Successful ecological engineering will require a design methodologyconsistent with, if not based on, ecological principles. The authors identify five design principlesto guide those practicing ecological engineering: (1) design consistent with ecological principles,(2) design for site-specific context, (3) maintain the independence of design functionalrequirements, (4) design for efficiency in energy and information, and (5) acknowledge thevalues and purposes that motivate design.


B-5

Ecosystem structure, economic cycles and market-oriented conservation. Crook, C., andR.A. Clapp. 2001. Ecological Conservation 28(3): 194-198 – Authors discuss and evaluatethree strategies of the market-oriented use of natural resources and conclude that, at least forthese three strategies, market-oriented mechanisms of conservation are often socially,economically, or ecologically unsustainable, and that proposals for market-oriented conservationshould be approached with caution.

Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense? Nunes, P., et al. 2001. EcologicalEconomics 39: 203-222 – This paper critically evaluates the notion and application of economic,monetary valuation of biological diversity, or biodiversity. The authors conclude that theempirical literature fails to apply economic valuation to the entire range of biodiversity benefits.Therefore, available economic valuation estimates should be regarded as providing a veryincomplete perspective on, and at best lower bounds to, the unknown value of biodiversitychanges.

Artificial Reefs

Artificial reefs: a review of their design, application, management and performance.M. Baine. 2001. Ocean & Coastal Management 44: 241-259 - A comprehensive literaturereview of artificial reefs, their design, application and management.

Fish assemblages associated with artificial reefs of concrete aggregates or quarry stoneoffshore Miami Beach, Florida, USA. Walker, B.K. et al. 2002. Aquatic Living Resources 15:95-105 – Comparison of pre-deployment fish counts from the reef sites and neighboring hardbottom and jetty with counts from the same sites two years post-deployment indicate theartificial reefs increased both fish abundance and richness in the local area.

Papers from the Seventh International Conference on Artificial Reefs and Related AquaticHabitats. Jensen, A.C. (Editor). ICES Journal of Marine Science 59 Supplement / ICES MarineScience Symposia 217 – Papers from a conference held in 1999 in Italy. The conference is heldevery four years to promote the exchange of information on the use of artificial habitats toenhance and manage marine and freshwater resources and protect the natural environment.Artificial habitats include benthic reefs, fish aggregating devices, and other man-made structuresused to enrich aquatic environments, fishing opportunities, and populations of marine andfreshwater plants and animals. This supplemental volume contains 55 papers that resulted fromthe conference. Some of the key papers of relevance to mitigating CWIS (Section 316b) impactsinclude:

1. Artificial reefs of Europe: perspective and future. Jensen, A.C. 2002. ICESJournal of Marine Science 59: S3-S13 – Artificial reefs have been in place in Europefor around 30 years. The majority now play a role in protecting value Mediterraneanseagrass beds from trawl damage, and most aspire to a fisheries function.

2. Larval productivity of a mature artificial reef: the ichthyoplankton of KingHarbor, California, 1974-1997. Stephens, J., Jr., and D. Pondella II. 2002. ICESJournal of Marine Science 59: S51-S58 – Do artificial reefs serve as productive


B-6

marine fish habitats (sources) or do fish assemblages of such reefs contribute little tothe gene pool of succeeding generations (sinks)? Research at this southern Californiareef explicitly was designed to answer this question. The results indicate that theKing Harbor breakwater represents a mature artificial reef and contributes to the reeffish larval pool of the bight, acting as a source rather than a sink.

3. Assessment of out-of-kind mitigation success of an artificial reef deployed inDelaware Bay, USA. Burton, W.H., et al. 2002. ICES Journal of Marine Science59: S106-S110 – Results indicate that the artificial reef constructed to mitigate forharbor dredge impacts provides enhanced benthic secondary production per unit areaover the lost habitat, but that total production does not equal what has been lost. Theconstruction of this reef, while not completely effective in its intended mitigation,provides a benchmark by which to design and judge future mitigation efforts.

4. Artificial reef design: void space, complexity, and attractants. Sherman, R.L., etal. 2002. ICES Journal of Marine Science 59: S196-S200 – The potential forenhancing fish abundance, species richness, and biomass on artificial reefs wasexamined by manipulating structural complexity of small concrete reefs. Resultsfurther highlight the importance of structural complexity in artificial reef designed toenhance fish recruitment, aggregation, and diversity.

5. Design considerations for an artificial reef to grow giant kelp (Macrocystispyrifera) in Southern California. Deysher, L.E., et al. 2002. ICES Journal ofMarine Science 59: S201-S207 – As mitigation for estimated losses of kelp bedresources owing to the operation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station(SONGS), Southern California Edison is building a 61-ha artificial reef to restorepopulations of the giant kelp. This paper discusses a design study on what substratescould be used, how large those substrates should be, how high they should be piled,and how they should be distributed.

6. Effects of increased habitat complexity on fish assemblages associated with largeartificial reef units (French Mediterranean coast). Charbonnel, E., et al. 2002.ICES Journal of Marine Science 59: S208-S213 – Monitoring results confirm theprominent role of habitat complexity in relation to artificial reef design on diversityand abundance of fish assemblages.

7. A quantitative framework to evaluate the attraction-production controversy.Osenberg, C.W., et al. 2002. ICES Journal of Marine Science 59: S214-S221 – Theauthors discuss their model that incorporates the simultaneous effects of habitataugmentation, competition among reefs for larval settlers, and post-settlementdensity-dependence, and propose two experimental approaches for evaluating theeffects of artificial reefs on local production of natural reefs.

8. Evaluating artificial reef performance: approaches to pre- and post-deploymentresearch. Wilding, T.A., and M.D.J. Sayer. 2002. ICES Journal of Marine Science59: S222-S230 – The utility of a baseline monitoring data set assembled pre-reefdeployment to facilitate multi-parameter post-reef deployment comparisons isdiscussed.

9. The use of coal fly ash in concrete for marine artificial reefs in the southeasternMediterranean: compressive strength, sessile biota, and chemical composition.Kress, N., et al. 2002. ICES Journal of Marine Science 59: S231-S237 – Results


B-7

show that, at least in the short term of 2 to 3 years, there is no environmental hazardto utilize coal fly ash in the construction of block units for artificial reefs.

Use of artificial habitat structures in U.S. lakes and reservoirs: a survey from the SouthernDivision AFS Reservoir Committee. Tugend, K.I., et al. 2002. Fisheries 27(5): 22- 27 – Ofthose states surveyed, 82% conducted some type of enhancement. In most states, 20% of waterbodies received enhancement although respondents usually believed a larger portion of lakes andreservoirs (>40%) needed enhancement. Although about 60% of states reported evaluation ofstructures, evaluations usually were testing for differences in fish abundance or angler catch ratesbetween habitat structures and control areas. Few studies documented effects of structures onfish recruitment or population size. Mores studies are needed to assess effects of habitatstructures on recruitment and abundance of sport fish in lakes and reservoirs. An online habitatenhancement manual for more information on structures reported in this survey can be found at:www.sdafs.org/reservoir/manuals/habitat/Main.htm

Reef habitats in the Middle Atlantic Bight: abundance, distribution, associated biologicalcommunities, and fishery resource use. Steimle, F.W., and C. Zetlin. 2001. Marine FisheriesReview: 24 – This review provides a preliminary summary of information found on the relativedistribution and abundance of reef habitat in the Bight, the living marine resources and biologicalcommunities that commonly use it, threats to this habitat and its biological resources, and thevalue or potential value of artificial reefs to fishery or habitat managers.

Fish Passage or Dam Removal

The lower Susquehanna River: shad, eagles, and wildflowers. Smith, R.K., andR.A. Bleistine. 2002. Hydro Review May 2002: SR12-SR15 – Paper discusses the success inrestoring American shad to the Susquehanna River system via fish lifts and a fish stockingprogram. Shad passage has increased since 1985 (~1,500 fish) to nearly 200,000 fish in 2001.The fish lifts also serve as a source for female shad spawners from which eggs are gathered anddistributed to hatcheries in Maryland and Pennsylvania.

The complex decision-making process for removing dams. Baish, S.K., S.D. David, andW.L. Graf. 2002. Environment 44(4): 21-31 – This paper is a summary manuscript of theinformation in the EPRI supported book published by the Heinz Center (EPRI Deliverable1005396). The paper discusses the difficulties that must be addressed, and how they can beaddressed, toward determining if a dam should or should not be removed.

A preliminary review of NOAA’s community-based dam removal and fish passageprojects. Lenhart, C.F. 2003. Coastal Management 31: 79-98 – This NOAA program supportshabitat restoration projects, including 53 dam removal and fish passage projects from 1996 to2002. This article provides a preliminary review of the biological benefits provided by the first18 dam removal and fish passage projects supported between 1996 and 1999. These 18 projectsimproved access to over 160 km of river habitat for many anadromous fish species, especiallyriver herring on the East Coast and salmonids on the West Coast.


B-8

Short-term changes in channel form and macroinvertebrate communities following low-head dam removal. Stanley, E.H., et al. 2002. Journal of North American BenthologicalSociety 21(1): 172-187 – Pre- and post-dam removal studies at a low-head, run-of-river dam inthe Barbazoo River, Wisconsin, found that within one year of removal, macroinvertebrateassemblages in formerly impounded reaches did not differ significantly from those in either theupstream reference site or in other impounded reaches below the dam site. Thus dam removalcaused relatively small and transient geomorphic and ecological changes in downstream reaches,and apparently rapid channel development to an equilibrium form within the formerimpoundment. The authors attribute the muted changes to the relatively large channel size andthe small volume of stored sediment available for transport following dam removal.

Hatchery Supplementation or Stocking

The use of releases of reared fish to enhance natural populations: a case study on turbotPsetta maxima (Linné, 1758). Stottrup, J.G., et al. 2002. Fisheries Research 59: 161-180 –Turbot were used as a model species to test if flatfish populations can be enhanced throughregular release of hatchery fish to Danish waters. No evidence of displacement of the wild stockwas found based on the findings of similar growth, similar size distribution in the later yearclasses, and constant ratio of reared and wild fish in the catches. The results suggest that releaseof reared turbot may result in an increase in fishery recruitment.

Rapid evolution of egg size in captive salmon. Heath, D.D., et al. 2003. Science 299(14 March): 1738-1740 – Unintentional selection in captivity can lead to rapid changes in criticallife-history traits that may reduce the success of supplementation or reintroduction programs.

Maturation and fecundity of a stock-enhanced population of striped bass in the SavannahRiver Estuary, U.S.A. Will, T.A., et al. 2002. Journal of Fish Biology 60: 532-544 – In 1990,GA-DNR began a hatchery-based, stock-enhancement program aimed at restoring a self-sustaining striped bass population in the Savannah River. The estimated annual survival ofstriped bass stocked in the river since 1990 is 35-45%, which has been high enough tosubstantially increase the numbers of striped bass in the river. Annual sampling surveys indicatethat stocked fish constitute a majority (>75%) of the current population. Majority of fish in theriver at present are young; however, as these young fish mature, egg production will likelyincrease and the density of striped bass eggs eventually will approach historic levels, providedsuitable habitat and water quality are maintained.

Homing of hatchery-reared American shad to the Lehigh River, a tributary to theDelaware River. Hendricks, M.L., et al. 2002. North American Journal of FisheriesManagement 22: 243-248 – Discusses the success from dam laddering and hatcherysupplementation of American shad in this tributary of the Delaware River. Results alsodemonstrate that shad migrating into the river were not a random assortment of shad from theDelaware River population but based on homing specific to the Lehigh River. Results furthersuggest that efforts to restore American shad above dams should include some transplant strategyto expedite re-colonization.


B-9

Optimization of North American flounder culture: a controlled breeding scheme.Luckenbach, J.A., et al. 2002. World Aquaculture March 2002: 40-45 – Authors propose thatrestocking programs could positively impact flounder fisheries along the entire eastern seaboard.Developing biotechnology to enhance the mariculture of southern and summer flounder couldbenefit this effort and improve predictability and profitability of commercial operations.

Aquaculture of paddlefish in the United States. Mims, S.D. 2001. Aquatic Living Resources14: 391-398 – Paper discusses the state-of-science for paddlefish culture in the MississippiBasin.

The culture of sturgeons in Russia: production of juveniles for stocking and meat forhuman consumption. Chebanov, M., and R. Billard. 2001. Aquatic Living Resources 14: 375-381 – Paper describes the current state of science on sturgeon culture and stocking in Russia.

Critically assessing stock enhancement: an introduction to the Mote Symposium. Travis, J.,et al. 1998. Bulletin of Marine Science 62(2): 305-311 – This 1998 paper is included because ofits importance to EPRI’s efforts to document the state-of-science for off-site mitigation/restoration. This is the introductory paper to a 1998 symposium on the subject.

Risk to genetic effective population size should be an important consideration in fish stockenhancement programs. Tringali, M.D., and T.M. Bert. 1998. Bulletin of Marine Science62(2): 641-659 – This paper discusses one of the key issues relative to hatchery supplementation;i.e., loss of genetic integrity.

The economic performance of marine stock enhancement programs. Hilborn, R. 1998.Bulletin of Marine Science 62(2): 661-674 – This 1998 paper is included because of itsimportance to EPRI’s efforts to document the state-of-science for off-site mitigation/restoration.The author reviews the economic performance of stock enhancement programs around the globe.The author reviewed nine marine stocking programs for which biological or economic measuresof success were available. Only one program, the Japanese chum salmon program, was a success.He discusses reasons for the economic failure of other programs and possible approaches forimproving success.

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAVs) Restoration

Patterns in fish assemblages 25 years after major seagrass loss. Vanderklift, M.A., andC.A. Jacoby. 2003. Marine Ecology Progress Series 247: 225-235 – This study conducted inAustralia provided limited evidence for differences in fish assemblage related to presence orabsence of seagrass. There were some differences in species composition, but many of theanalyses were dominated by fine-scale spatial and temporal variation. Part of the variation incatches can be explained by spatial and temporal variation in the distribution of drift: driftseagrass was associated with a distinct assemblage of fishes: but was not restricted to beachesimmediately adjacent to seagrass beds.

Impact of habitat edges on density and secondary production of seagrass-associated fauna.Bologna, P.A.X., and K.L. Heck, Jr. 2002. Estuaries 25(5): 1033-1044 – Secondary production


B-10

was greater at edge than interior locations at test sites. These unexpected results suggest thatdifferences in faunal densities and secondary production between edges and interiors of seagrasspatches represent a potentially vital link in seagrass trophic dynamics.

Eelgrass Zostera marina loss in temperate estuaries: relationship to land-derived nitrogenloads and effect of light limitation imposed by algae. Hauxwell, J., et al. 2003. MarineEcology Progress Series 247: 59-73 – In this paper the authors explicitly link changes incommunity structure of estuarine primary producers to measured nitrogen loading rates fromwatersheds to estuaries, and quantify the relationship between nitrogen load, annual dynamics ofalgal growth and Zostera marina productivity, and overall eelgrass decline at the watershed-estuarine scale in estuaries of Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts.

Deterioration of eelgrass, Zostera marina L., meadows by water pollution in Seto InlandSea, Japan. Tamaki, H., et al. 2002. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44:1253-1258 – Eelgrasstransplants at the outside of a meadow declined significantly, whereas those at the center wereconsistently well established. The authors hypothesize that flow rates at the outside were notenough to remove deposited sediments from the surface of eelgrass leaves and that the largeamount of sediment deposition caused by water pollution and/or eutrophication also seemed toinhibit the survival of eelgrass at the outside edge of the transplanted meadow.

Seed bank patterns in Chesapeake Bay eelgrass (Zostera marina L.): a Bay-wideperspective. Harwell, M.C., and R.J. Orth. 2002. Estuaries 25(6B): 1196-1204 – The varietyand importance of eelgrass seedbanks in the Chesapeake Bay relative to eelgrass conservationand restoration is discussed.

Variations in eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) morphology and internal nutrient composition asinfluenced by increased temperature and water column nitrate. Touchette, B.W., et al.2003. Estuaries 26(1): 142-155 – In a mesocosm study (lab tanks), both increased temperatureand increased nitrate led to declines in shoot density as well as decreased leaf and rootproduction.

Estuarine-open-water comparison of fish community structure in eelgrass (Zostera marinaL.) habitats of Cape Cod. Hunter-Thomson, K., et al. 2002. Biological Bulletin 203: 247-248.

Effects of eelgrass habitat loss on estuarine fish communities of southern New England.Hughes, J.E., et al. 2002. Estuaries 25(2): 235-249 – Fish abundance, biomass, species richness,dominance, and life history diversity decreased significantly along the gradient of decreasingeelgrass habitat complexity. Loss of eelgrass was accompanied by significant declines in thesemeasures of fish community integrity. Ten of the 13 most common species collected from 1988-1996 showed maximum abundance and biomass in sites with high eelgrass habitat complexity.All but two common species declined in abundance and biomass with the complete loss ofeelgrass.

Modeling seagrass landscape pattern and associated ecological attributes. Fonseca, M.,et al. 2002. Ecological Applications 12(1): 218-237 – Paper discusses issues associated withdecreasing seagrass habitat and the ecological services (e.g., water filtration, nursery habitat)


B-11

provided by the seagrass resource. Authors discuss their attempts to develop a predictive modelfor seagrass bed coverage and ecological attributes of the bed, such as biomass and shootdensity. Research was performed on seagrass habitat in Beaufort, North Carolina.

The response of fishes to submerged aquatic vegetation complexity in two ecoregions of themid-Atlantic Bight: Buzzards Bay and Chesapeake Bay. Wyda, J.C., et al. 2002. Estuaries25(1): 86-100 – The abundance, biomass, and species richness of the fish assemblage weresignificantly higher at sites that have high levels of eelgrass habitat complexity compared to sitesthat have reduced eelgrass habitat complexity or that have completely lost eelgrass. Abundance,biomass, and species richness at reduced eelgrass complexity sites also were more variable thanat high eelgrass complexity habitats. Most species had greater abundance and were found morefrequently at sites that have eelgrass. The replacement of SAV habitats by benthic macroalgae,which occurred in Buzzards Bay but not Chesapeake Bay, did not provide an equivalent habitatto seagrass. Nutrient enrichment-related degradation of eelgrass habitat has diminished theoverall capacity of estuaries to support fish populations. [NOTE: this paper has fish densitydata.]

Importance of shallow water habitats for demersal fishes and decapod crustaceans inPenobscot Bay, Maine. Lazzari, M.A., and B. Tupper. 2002. Environmental Biology of Fishes63: 57-66 – Authors found that the greater species diversity and higher abundance of epibenthicfishes and decapod crustaceans observed in vegetated habitats, particularly eel grass beds,compared with non-vegetated areas in Penobscot Bay conform to the hypothesis that increasedhabitat complexity results in increased species richness and abundance.

Wetland Restoration

Characterization of wetland mitigation projects in Tennessee, USA. Morgan, K.L., andT.H. Roberts. 2003. Wetlands 23(1) 65-69 – In a random sample of 50 projects, mitigation inthe form of creation, restoration, enhancement, and preservation was used to replace 38 ha ofjurisdictional wetlands destroyed. Over 104 ha of compensatory wetland mitigation wereproposed for this loss; however, only 78 ha were present when each of the sites was delineated.Poor design resulting in improper hydrology and poor survival of planted stock was likely theprimary cause of this reduced area. Wetland mitigation projects in Tennessee likely could beimproved if greater emphasis was placed on design of the project, especially with regard to thehydrology of the site.

Plant diversity, composition, and invasion of restored and natural prairie pothole wetlands:implications for restoration. Seabloom, E.W., and A.G. van der Valk. 2003. Wetlands 23(1):1-12 – The overall vegetative composition of restored wetlands was different from that of naturalwetlands. Lower species richness, greater compositional variability, and lack of distinct flora inrestored wetlands support the hypothesis that dispersal limitation is the primary cause of thedifferences between vegetation in restored and natural wetlands.

Community metabolism during early development of a restored wetland. McKenna, J.E., Jr.2003. Wetlands 23(1): 35-50 – A restored wetland in upstate New York was examined to


B-12

determine if ecological function (i.e., productivity), as well as biotic structure, was restored ascompared with rates and conditions in a reference wetland. Typical wetland conditions andprocesses were found to develop quickly after restoration, but differences in biotic communitystructure indicate that observed rates of production and respiration at both sites were maintainedby flow through different food-web pathways. Despite the relatively high process rates, anysuccessional progress of the restoration site is expected to be slow.

Habitat value of a developing estuarine brackish marsh for fish and invertebrates.Hampel, H., et al. 2003. ICES Journal of Marine Science 60: 278-289 – Studies in westernEurope compared the utilization by nekton species of a natural mature marsh with a recentlycreated developing marsh under similar conditions. A distinct difference in nekton communitystructure between the two marshes was observed, with biomass and densities of nekton higher inthe natural marsh. The authors concluded that while creek morphology influences the abundanceand species composition of visiting nekton, the age of a marsh and its maturity are believed to bethe prime factors in determining the habitat function of creek systems of developing and maturemarshes.

Determining ecological equivalence in service-to-service scaling of salt marsh restoration.Strange, E., et al. 2002. Environmental Management 29(2): 290-300 – This paper describeshabitat equivalency analysis (HEA), a habitat-based “service-to-service” approach fordetermining the amount of restoration needed to compensate for natural resource losses, andexamines issues in its application in the case of salt marsh restoration.

Natural and manipulated sources of heterogeneity controlling early faunal development ofa salt marsh. Levin, L.A., and T.S. Talley. Ecological Applications 12(6): 1785-1802 – Thisstudy used observations of natural variation and large-scale manipulative experiments to test theinfluence of vascular vegetation and soil organic matter on the rate and trajectory of macrofaunalrecovery in a southern California created salt marsh. The most significant sources ofheterogeneity in the recovering marsh were associated with site history and climate variation.Faunal recovery was most rapid in highly localized, organic-rich marsh sediments that wereremnants of the historical wetland. The large spatial scale and multi-year duration of this studyrevealed that natural sources of spatial and temporal heterogeneity may exert stronger influenceson faunal succession in California wetlands than manipulation of vegetation or soil properties.

Flood Pulsing in Wetlands: Restoring the Natural Hydrobiological Balance.Middleton, B.A. (Editor). 2002. John Wiley & Sons, NY. www.wiley.com – Inclusive papers:

1. The flood pulse concept in wetland restoration. Middleton, B.A.2. Flood pulse and restoration of riparian vegetation in the American southwest.

Stromberg, J.C., and M.K. Chew3. The role of the flood pulse in ecosystem-level processes in southwestern riparian

forests: a case study from the middle Rio Grande. Ellis, L.M., et al.4. The role of flood pulse in maintaining Boltonia decurrens, a fugitive plant species

of the Illinois River floodplain: a case history of a threatened species. Smith, M.,and P. Mettler.


B-13

5. Conservation and restoration of semiarid riparian forests: a case study from theupper Missouri River, Montana. Scott, M.L., and G.T. Auble.

6. Implications of reestablishing prolonged flood pulse characteristics of theKissimmee River and floodplain ecosystem. Toth, L.A., et al.

7. Flood pulsing in the regeneration and maintenance of species in riverine forestedwetlands of the southeastern United States. Middleton, B.A.

Nutrient effects on the composition of salt marsh plant communities along the southernAtlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States. Pennings, S.C., et al. 2002. Estuaries 25(6B):1164-1173 – Research results suggest that changes in nutrient input may lead to predictablechanges in the composition of similar salt marsh plant communities across large geographicareas despite site to site variation in the abiotic environment.

Tidal Wetland Restoration: Physical and Ecological Processes. Goodwin, P., and A.J. Mehta(Editors). 2001. Journal of Coastal Research Volume SI(27) Winter 2001 – Special issuecontaining 14 papers on the theme. Inclusive papers are as follows:

1. Tidal wetland restoration: an introduction. Goodwin, P., et al. pages 1-6.2. Tidal salt marsh morphodynamics: a synthesis. Friedrichs, C.T., and J.E. Perry.

pages 7-37.3. Tidal wetland functioning. Zedler, J.B., and J.C. Calloway. pages 38-64.4. Hydrodynamic and water quality processes in mangrove regions. Struve, J., and

R.A. Falconer. pages 65-75.5. Modeling of marshes and wetlands. King, I.P. Pages 76-87.6. Subsurface flow and salinity response patterns in a tidal wetland marsh plain.

Greenblatt, M.S., and R.J. Sobey. pages 88-108.7. Mixing and circulation in wetlands. Goodwin, P., and R.Z. Kamman. pages 109-

120.8. Modeling muddy coast dynamics and stability. Mehta, A.J., and R. Kirby.

pages 121-136.9. Modeling muddy coast response to waves. Rodriguez, H.N., and A.J. Mehta.

pages 137-148.10. Restoring physical processes in tidal wetlands. Williams, P. pages 149-161.11. Restoration of subsided sites and calculation of historic marsh elevations.

Krone, R.B., and G. Hu. pages 162-169.12. Creating tidal salt marshes in the Chesapeake Bay. Perry, J.E., et al. pages 170-

191.13. Tidal wetland restoration in The Netherlands. Verbeek, H., and C. Storm.

pages 192-202.14. Salt marsh restoration experience in San Francisco Bay. Williams, P., and

P. Faber. pages 203 –211.

Wetland restoration thresholds: can a degradation transition be reversed with increasedeffort? Lindrig-Cisneros, R., et al. 2003. Ecological Applications 13(1): 193-205 – Paperdiscusses the use of nitrogen fertilization on southern California wetland cordgrass to increasecanopy, thereby providing protection and nesting habitat for the endangered light-footed clapper


B-14

rail. Canopies were robust when urea was added; however, they reverted to short stature soonafter fertilization ended.

Use of restored small wetlands by breeding waterfowl in Prince Edward Island, Canada.Stevens, C.E., et al. 2003. Restoration Ecology 11(1): 3-12 – Research demonstrates theancillary benefits of wetland restoration.

Growth and production of the mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) in a restored saltmarsh. Teo, S.L.H., and K.W. Able. 2003. Estuaries 26(1): 51-63 – Research conductedwithin one of PSEG’s restored salt marshes coupled with the results of other studies on thefeeding, movement, and habitat use of this species in the restored marsh indicate that the specieshas responded well to the restoration.

Using gradients in tidal restoration to evaluate nekton community responses to salt marshrestoration. Raposa, K.B., and C.T. Roman. 2003. Estuaries 26(1): 98-105 – Research inMassachusetts suggests that nekton demonstrate the greatest responses (assemblage andabundance), and that the most dramatic shift toward a more natural nekton assemblage will occurwith restoration of severely restricted tidal salt marshes.

Early responses of fishes and crustaceans to restoration of a tidally restricted New Englandsalt marsh. Raposa, K. 2002. Restoration Ecology 10(4): 665-676 – In this study, restorationinduced rapid changes in the composition, density, size, and distribution of nekton species, butthe authors believe additional monitoring is necessary to quantify longer-term effects of saltmarsh restoration on nekton.

Does facilitation of faunal recruitment benefit ecosystem restoration? An experimentalstudy of invertebrate assemblages in wetland mesocosms. Brady, V.J., et al. 2002.Restoration Ecology 10(4): 617-626 – Results suggest that facilitation of invertebrate recruitment(inoculating a restored wetland with vegetation/sediment plugs from a natural wetland andstocking of invertebrates) does indeed alter invertebrate community development and thatfacilitation may lead to a more natural community structure in less time under conditionssimulating wetland restoration.

Nutrient and freshwater inputs from sewage effluent discharge alter benthic and infaunalcommunities in a tidal salt marsh creek. Twichell, S., et al. 2002. Biological Bulletin 203:256-258.

Ecological Restoration of Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic Ecosystems in the Netherlands (NWEurope). Nienhuis, P.H., and R.D. Gulati (Editors). 2002. Hydrobiologia 478: - 12 paperslisted below covering restoration of marine, brackish, and freshwater wetlands, riparian areas,and other freshwater areas:

1. Ecological restoration of aquatic and semi-aquatic ecosystems in theNetherlands: an introduction. Nienhuis, P.H., and R.D. Gulati. 2002.Hydrobiologia 478: 1-6.


B-15

2. Ecological restoration in coastal areas in the Netherlands: concepts, dilemmasand some examples. de Jonge, V.N., and D.J. de Jonge. 2002. Hydrobiologia 478:7-28.

3. Restoration of salt marshes in the Netherlands. Bakker, J.P., et al. 2002.Hydrobiologia 478: 29-51 – A review of efforts to restore salt marshes in theNetherlands.

4. Ecological rehabilitation of the lowland basin of the river Rhine (NW Europe).Nienhuis, P.H., et al. 2002. Hydrobiologia 478: 53-72.

5. Lakes in the Netherlands, their origin, eutrophication and restoration: state-of-the-art review. Gulati, R.D., and E. van Donk. 2002. Hydrobiologia 478: 73-106.

6. The restoration of fens in the Netherlands. Lamers, L.P.M., et al. 2002.Hydrobiologia 478: 107-130.

7. Towards a decision support system for stream restoration in the Netherlands: anoverview of restoration projects and future needs. Verdonschot, P.F.M., andR.C. Nijboer. 2002. Hydrobiologia 478: 131-148.

8. Restoration of brook valley meadows in the Netherlands. Grootjans, A.P., et al.2002. Hydrobiologia 478: 149-170.

9. Restoration of aquatic macrophyte vegetation in acidified and eutrophicatedshallow soft water wetlands in the Netherlands. Roelofs, J.G.M., et al. 2002.Hydrobiologia 478: 171-180.

10. Restoration of coastal dune slacks in the Netherlands. Grootjans, A.P., et al.2002. Hydrobiologia 478: 181-203.

11. A review of the past and present status of anadromous fish species in theNetherlands: is restocking the Rhine feasible? De Groot, S.J. 2002.Hydrobiologia 478: 205-218 – The past, present, and future of restoration stocking ofeight anadromous species inhabiting the Lower Rhine. The authors conclude thatrestocking programs should be considerably improved before noticeable success is tobe met.

12. SYNTHESIS: the state of the art of aquatic and semi-aquatic ecologicalrestoration projects in the Netherlands. Nienhuis, P.H., et al. 2002.Hydrobiologia 478: 219-233.

Controls on fish distribution and abundance in temporary wetlands. Baber, M.J., et al.2002. Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Science 59: 1441-1450 – Landscape processes(connectivity to permanent water bodies) predominantly influenced fish assemblages, althoughlocal processes (depth-hydroperiod) were also important.

Hydrologic variability and the application of index of biotic integrity metrics to wetlands: aGreat Lakes evaluation. Wilcox, D.A., et al. 2002. Wetlands 22(3): 588-615 – Authors discusshow they developed and evaluated an index of biotic integrity for wetlands that could be used tocategorize the level of degradation (or recovery).

Hydrologic and chemical control of Phragmites growth in tidal marshes of SW Connecticut,USA. Chambers, R.M., et al. 2002. Marine Ecology Progress Series 239: 83-91 – To controlthe growth of Phragmites in tidal marshes of management concern, both the feasibility and need


B-16

for methods that increase flooding depth, frequency, salinity and/or sulfide concentrations shouldbe considered.

Breeding season bird use of restored wetlands in eastern Maryland. Hotaling, N.E.M., et al.2002. Southeastern Naturalist 1(3): 233-252 – Breeding season bird species richness,abundance, and diversity were evaluated in 21 restored wetlands and several associated habitatsover two years. Restored emergent marshes were found to provide significant habitat forwetland birds, but benefits must be weighed against the loss of bird use in habitats converted towetland.

Section 404 wetland mitigation and permit success criteria in Pennsylvania, USA, 1986-1999. Cole, C.A., and D. Shafer. 2002. Environmental Management 30(4) 508-515 – About60% of the mitigation wetlands were judged as meeting their originally defined success criteria,some after more than 10 years. The permit process appears to have resulted in a net gain ofalmost 0.05 ha of wetlands per mitigation project. However, due to the replacement of emergent,scrub-shrub, and forested wetlands with open water ponds or uplands, mitigation practicesprobably led to a net loss of vegetated wetlands.

Temperate freshwater wetlands: types, status, and threats. Brinson, M.M., andA.I. Malvarez. 2002. Environmental Conservation 29(2): 115-133 – This review examines thestatus of temperate-zone freshwater wetlands and makes projections of how changes over the2025 time horizon might affect their biodiversity.

Approaches to coastal wetland restoration: northern Gulf of Mexico. Turner, R.E., andW. Streever. 2002. SBP Academic Publishing, The Hague, The Netherlands. 147 pp –Techniques reviewed in the book for creating and restoring coastal wetlands include floodingformer agricultural impoundments, backfilling canals, spoil bank removal, dredge materialwetlands, and excavated wetlands.

Fish-mediated nutrient and energy exchange between a Lake Superior coastal wetland andits adjacent bay. Brazner, J.C. et al. 2002. Journal of Great Lakes Research 27(1): 98-111 –Results of research to quantify the flux of organisms, nutrients, and energy between freshwatercoastal habitats and adjacent offshore waters. Results may have implications to the process ofnormalizing fish losses at CWIS to units of habitat restoration based on energy flux.

Quantifying vegetation and nekton response to tidal restoration of a New England saltmarsh. Roman, C.T. et al. 2002. Restoration Ecology 10(3): 450-460 – Using a before-after-control-impact study, one year after restoring tidal flow to a marsh, vegetation and nektonrapidly approached that found in a control marsh. Nekton, in particular, in the restored marshwas observed to rapidly equal the density and richness of the unrestricted control marsh. Thisstudy provides a quantitative approach for assessing the response of vegetation and nekton totidal restoration.

Wetlands and Remediation II: Proceedings of the Second International Conference onWetlands & Remediation. Nehring, K.W., and S.E Brauning (Editors). 2002. Battelle Press,Columbus, OH and Richland, WA. 385 pp. – Papers from the 2nd International Conference on the


B-17

subject held in 2001. Focused primarily on the remediation and restoration of contaminatedwetlands through engineered and natural attenuation approaches. In addition, wetlands – bothnatural and constructed – are being increasingly used to treat contaminated water bodies andwastewater streams. 45 papers from the conference were accepted for publication. Papersaddress the topics of: Remediation of Wetlands Contamination; Wetlands for WastewaterTreatment; Wetlands Design, Construction, and Operation; and Wetlands Ecology andRestoration.

Use of ecological services to scale compensation for wetlands impacts. Weir, J.A., et al.2002. Pages 303-311 in K.W. Nehring and S.E Brauning (Editors), Wetlands and RemediationII: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Wetlands & Remediation, BattellePress, Columbus, OH and Richland, WA – Through a collaborative approach with stakeholders,habitat equivalency analyses (HEA) were used to scale compensation options on an ecologicalservice basis. This is contrary to the area-based ratio approach used in many ecologicalcompensation projects. The selection of the preferred alternative centers around the ability toreplicate lost ecological services, desire to fix a current environmental problem at the base, andconfidence in planning-level costs.

Riparian wetland function in channelized and natural streams. Magner, J. 2002. Pages 363-370 in K.W. Nehring and S.E Brauning (Editors), Wetlands and Remediation II: Proceedings ofthe Second International Conference on Wetlands & Remediation, Battelle Press, Columbus, OHand Richland, WA. – Authors compared riparian wetland function in channelized andunchannelized streams and present results showing that natural channels with riparian wetlandsprovide both hydrologic and chemical attenuation in agricultural watersheds.

Introduction to the Special Issue on Dike/Levee Breach Restoration of Coastal Marshes.Simenstad, C.A. and R.S. Warren. 2002. Restoration Ecology 10(3) – 14 papers resulting froma 1999 conference on the subject sponsored by the Estuarine Research Federation. The purposeof this conference was to explore the potential and pitfalls of estuarine and coastal ecosystemrestoration by breaching dikes and levees. This special issue includes the following papers:

1. Estuarine and tidal wetland restoration in the United Kingdom: policy versuspractice. J. Pethick. 2002. Restoration Ecology 10(3): 431-437.

2. Restoration of the Sieperda tidal marsh in the Scheldt estuary, The Netherlands.R.H.M. Eertman et al. 2002. Restoration Ecology 10(3): 438-449.

3. Quantifying vegetation and nekton response to tidal restoration of a New Englandsalt marsh. C.T. Roman et al. 2002. Restoration Ecology 10(3): 450-460.

4. Using functional trajectories to track constructed salt marsh development in theGreat Bay Estuary, Maine/New Hampshire. P.A. Morgan and F.T. Short. 2002.Restoration Ecology 10(3): 461-473.

5. Physical and functional responses to experimental marsh surface elevationmanipulation in Coos Bay’s south slough. C. Cornu and S. Sadro. 2002. RestorationEcology 10(3): 474-486.

6. Floristic development patterns in a restored Elk River estuarine marsh, GraysHarbor, Washington. R. M. Thom et al. 2002. Restoration Ecology 10(3): 487-496.


B-18

7. Salt marsh restoration in Connecticut: 20 years of science and management.Warren, R.S., et al. 2002. Restoration Ecology 10(3): 497-513 – Different time periodsfor restoring ecological functional equivalents to natural marshes for marsh flora andfauna are discussed. Overall, the state concludes that restoring tides will set degradedmarshes on trajectories that can bring essentially full restoration, within two decades, ofecological functions.

8. Contrasting functional performance of juvenile salmon habitat in recoveringwetlands of the Salmon River Estuary, Oregon, USA. A. Gray et al. 2002. RestorationEcology 10(3): 514-526.

9. Physical evolution of restored breached levee salt marshes in the San Francisco BayEstuary. P. Williams and M.K. Orr. 2002. Restoration Ecology 10(3): 527-542.

10. Modeling habitat change in salt marshes after tidal restoration. R.M.J. Boumanset al. 2002. Restoration Ecology 10(3): 543-555.

11. A monitoring protocol to assess tidal restoration of salt marshes on local andregional scales. H.A. Neckles et al. 2002. Restoration Ecology 10(3): 556-563.

12. Restoration of freshwater intertidal habitat functions at Spencer Island, Everett,Washington. C.D. Tanner et al. 2002. Restoration Ecology 10(3): 564-576.

13. Hydraulic geometry: a geomorphic design tool for tidal marsh channel evolution inwetland restoration projects. P.B. Williams et al. 2002. Restoration Ecology 10(3):577-590.

14. Drainage and elevation as factors in the restoration of salt marshes in Britain.S. Crooks et al. 2002. Restoration Ecology 10(3): 591-602.

Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology. M.P. Weinstein and D.A. Kreeger(Editors). Kluwer Academic Publishers, London, UK. 845 p. – A collection of 30 papers thatdiscuss many of the key debated issues on the value of restored wetlands relative to naturalsystems. Questions discussed include: Do restored wetlands reach functional equivalency to“natural” systems; Are tidal marshes the “engine” that drives much of the secondary productionin coastal waters; How is marsh restoration success measured? While all the papers in this bookare key, the following are a few papers that summarize information on key technical issues in theoverall debate on the value and function of wetlands:

1. Salt marsh ecosystem support of marine transient species. L.A. Deegan et al.2. Functional equivalency of restored and natural salt marshes. J.B. Zedler and

R. Lindig-Cisneros.3. The health and long-term stability of natural and restored marshes in

Chesapeake Bay. J.C. Stephenson et al.4. Initial response of fishes to marsh restoration at a former salt hay farm

bordering Delaware Bay. K.W. Able et al.5. Catastrophes, near-catastrophes, and the bounds of expectation: success criteria

for macroscale marsh restoration. M.P. Weinstein et al.

Macroinvertebrate and fish populations in a restored impounded salt marsh 21 years afterthe reestablishment of tidal flooding. Swamy, V., P.E. Fell, M. Body, M. Keaney, M. Nyaku,E. McIlvain, and A. Keen. 2002. Environmental Management 29(4): 516-530 – The State ofConnecticut has restored tidal flow to many impounded salt marshes. One of these and the one


B-19

most extensively studied is impoundment One in the Barn Island Wildlife Management Area inStonington, Connecticut. The results obtained in this study and those of other restoring marshesat Barn Island indicate the full recovery of certain animal populations following thereintroduction of tidal flow to impounded marshes may require up to two or more decades.Furthermore, not only do different species recover at different rates on a single marsh, but thetime required for the recovery of a particular species may vary widely from marsh to marsh,often independently of other species.

Fifteen years of vegetation and soil development after brackish-water marsh creation.Craft, C., et al. 2002. Restoration Ecology 10(2): 248-258 – Development of abovegroundbiomass and macro-organic matter (MOM) was dependent on elevation and frequency of tidalinundation. Aboveground biomass of Spartina alterniflora, which occupied low elevationsalong tidal creeks and was inundated frequently, developed to levels similar to the natural marshwithin 3 years after creation. S. cynosuroides, which dominated interior areas of the marsh andwas flooded less frequently, required 9 years to consistently achieve aboveground biomassequivalent to the natural marsh. Aboveground biomass of S. patens, which was planted at thehighest elevations along the terrestrial margin and seldom flooded, never consistently developedaboveground biomass comparable with the natural marsh during the 15 years after marshcreation. MOM generally developed at the same rate as aboveground biomass. Wetland soilnutrient levels were estimated to take much longer (~30 years or more) to reach levelscomparable to natural systems; however, development of the benthic invertebrate-based foodweb, which depends on organic matter enrichment of the upper 5 to 10 cm of soil, is estimated totake less time. The hydrologic regime (frequency of wetland flooding) of the “target” wetlandshould be considered when setting realistic expectations for success criteria of created andrestored wetlands.

A comparative assessment of genetic diversity among differently-aged populations ofSpartina alterniflora on restored versus natural wetlands. Travis, S.E., et al. 2002.Restoration Ecology 10(1): 37-42 – Findings indicate that restored populations of S. alternifloramaintain levels of genetic diversity comparable to natural populations, which should providesome measure of resistance against environmental disturbances.

A comparison of created and natural wetlands in Pennsylvania, USA. Campbell, D.A., et al.2002. Wetlands Ecology and Management 10: 41-49 – To determine if differences existedbetween created and natural wetlands, the authors compared soil matrix chroma, organic mattercontent, rock fragment content, bulk density, particle size distribution, vegetation speciesrichness, total plant cover, and average wetland indicator status in created and natural wetlandsin Pennsylvania. Created wetlands ranged in age from 2 to 18 years. Results found that createdwetlands still differed significantly from natural reference marshes; however, differences couldbe overcome or minimized with updated site selection practices, more careful consideration ofmonitoring period lengths, and, especially, a stronger effort to recreate wetland types native tothe region should result in increased similarity between created and natural wetlands.

Habitat use by fishes after tidal reconnection of an impounded estuarine wetland in theIndian River Lagoon, Florida (USA). Poulakis, G.R., et al. 2002. Wetlands Ecology andManagement 10: 51-69 – A 24.3-ha impoundment had been isolated from the Indian River


B-20

Lagoon for over 39 years. A 12-month study to determine habitat use by fishes after tidalreconnection and the implementation of Rotational Impoundment Management (a practice tominimize mosquito breeding) was performed. Within 15 weeks, significant increase in fishhabitat use was observed (from 9 to 40 species). This study is the first to document the recoveryof fish populations in a reconnected impoundment in the Indian River Lagoon area using bothactive and passive sampling techniques.

Position paper on performance standards for wetland restoration and creation. Society ofWetland Scientists. 2001. Society of Wetland Scientists Bulletin December 2001: 21-23 – TheSociety of Wetland Scientists recommends that (1) wetland restoration and creation project-planning documents should include clearly articulated performance standards that are based onthe best available science and that reflect the structural and functional objectives of projects and(2) research linking performance standards to wetland function should be encouraged.Recommendations for performance standards are discussed.

Declining biodiversity: why species matter and how their functions might be restored inCalifornian tidal marshes. Zedler, J.B., et al. 2001. BioScience 51(12): 1005-1017 – Thispaper synthesizes data for tidal marshes of the California biogeographic region. Authorsconclude that the California salt marsh plain is a model system for exploring the importance ofdiversity to restoration. Species-rich plantings enhanced the restoration site by increasingrecruitment of native species, canopy complexity, biomass, and nitrogen accumulation.Recommendations for restoration practices are included.

Movement and growth of tagged young-of-the-year Atlantic croaker (Micropogoniaundulatus L.) in restored and reference marsh creeks in Delaware Bay, USA. Miller, M.J.,and K.W. Able. 2002. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 267: 15-33 – Bothcreated creeks in a restored marsh and natural creeks in a reference marsh appeared to be utilizedas a young-of-year habitat in a similar way during the summer and until egress out of themarshes during the fall; thus this restoration effort (off-site mitigation for PSEG’s Salem Plant)has been successful in creating suitable habitat for Atlantic croaker.

Effectiveness of compensatory wetland mitigation in Massachusetts, USA. Brown, S.C., andP.L.M. Veneman. 2001. Wetlands 21(4): 508-518 – Paper principally discusses compensatorywetland mitigation in response to construction projects on existing wetlands. Numerousproblems are noted related to design of wetlands, their maintenance, and their effectiveness withrespect to those they are designed to replace. Most of these problems are regulatory in nature –lack of enforcement to ensure compliance with permit conditions.

Maturation of a constructed tidal marsh relative to two natural reference tidal marshesover 12 years. Havens, K.J., et al. 2002. Ecological Engineering 18: 305-315 – Seven yearsafter construction of a tidal marsh, the constructed marsh has progressed to a general level offunction similar to that of nearby natural marshes. Some morphological differences remain, suchas differences in community type ratios. Significant differences in habitat function remain inthree areas: sediment organic carbon at depth, mature saltbush density, and bird utilization.Authors note that specific functions can be enhanced for fish utilization (more subtidal habitat)and for birds (more shrub habitat) depending on management priorities.


B-21

Restoration principles emerging from one of the world’s largest tidal marsh restorationprojects. Weinstein, M.P., et al. 2001. Wetlands Ecology and Management 9: 387-407 –Authors discuss the lessons learned and principles that are developing from one of the world’slargest tidal wetland restoration projects that was conceived to offset the losses of fish to once-through cooling at a power plant (Salem) on Delaware Bay. The history of this project, andultimately the restoration principles that emerge from it, are the subjects of this paper.

Marsh terracing as a wetland restoration tool for creating fishery habitat. L.P. Rozas andT.J. Minello. 2001. Wetlands 21(3): 327-341 – Terracing is a relatively new wetland-restorationtechnique used to convert shallow subtidal bottom to marsh. This method uses existing bottomsediments to form terraces or ridges at marsh elevation. Research examined the habitat value ofterracing for fishery species at Sabine National Wildlife Refuge, Louisiana, in spring and fall1999 by quantifying and comparing nekton densities in a 9-year-old terrace field and nearbyreference area. Results indicated that terrace fields support higher standing crops of fisheryspecies compared with shallow marsh ponds of similar size. Future restoration projects couldinclude design changes to increase the proportion of marsh in a terrace field and enhance thehabitat value of marsh terraces for fishery species.

Diet composition of mummichogs, Fundulus heteroclitus, from restoring and unrestrictedregions of a New England (U.S.A.) salt marsh. James-Pirri, M.J., et al. 2001. Estuarine,Coastal and Shelf Science 53: 205-213 – The study provides evidence that tidally restoredmarshes can provide similar food resources as unrestricted marshes, in terms of consumptionpatterns of dominant marsh consumers, within the first year after restoration, before major shiftsin dominant vegetation (i.e., from Phragmites to Spartina spp.) occur.

Wetland restoration information: see Stages 22(1) 2001 – The newsletter of the Early LifeHistory Section of the American Fisheries Society (www.fisheries.org) describes many studiesunderway to evaluate the extensive marsh restoration project of Public Service Electric and Gasin Delaware Bay. Another web address for this section is: http://www.marine.rutgers.edu/rumfs/elh.htm. Check out the section on the Rutgers University Marine Field Station.

The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis. R.T. Woodward and Y-S. Wui.2001. Ecological Economics 37: 257-270 - Using results from 39 studies, the authors evaluatedthe relative value of different wetland services, the sources of bias in wetland valuation, and thereturns to scale exhibited in wetland values. While some general trends are emerging, theprediction of a wetland's value based on previous studies remains highly uncertain and the needfor site-specific valuation efforts remains large. www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

Miscellaneous Restoration Topics

Small marine reserves may increase escapement of red drum. Collins, M.R., et al. 2002.Fisheries 27(2): 20-24 – An experimental stock enhancement program was conducted in PortRoyal Sound estuary, South Carolina, in which cultured red drum were released into a system ofshallow tidal creeks that flow into the Colleton River. Stocked fish constituted nearly 18% of


B-22

red drum collected nearly 1 year after stocking. Growth rates of stocked fish were similar tothose of wild fish. It was found that while dispersal was substantial, many stocked fish stayed inthe general area of release until reaching the age of maturity (~ age 3), when they left the estuary,and at all ages they were mixed with wild fish. This finding suggests that relatively small areascontaining the appropriate suite of habitat types could be designated as marine reserves (no-takezones) in order to increase escapement of red drum, thus enhancing recruitment to the spawningstock. Establishing a system of these very small reserves in a number of estuaries wouldminimize interference with anglers while assisting recovery of red drum stocks, and perhapsenhancing stocks of other estuarine species as well.

Post-project appraisals in adaptive management of river channel restoration. Downs, P.W.,and G.M. Kondolf. 2002. Environmental Management 29(4): 477-496 – Post-project appraisals(PPAs) can evaluate river restoration schemes in relation to their compliance with design, theirshort-term performance attainment, and their long-term geomorphological compatibility with thecatchment hydrology and sediment transport processes. PPAs provide the basis forcommunicating the results of one restoration scheme to another, thereby improving futurerestoration designs. They also supply essential performance feedback needed for adaptivemanagement, in which management actions are treated as experiments. PPAs allow riverrestoration success to be defined both in terms of the scheme attaining its performance objectivesand in providing a significant learning experience.

Freshwater protected areas: strategies for conservation. Saunders, D.L., et al. 2002.Conservation Biology 16(1): 30-41 – Authors present three strategies for freshwater protected-area design and management: whole-catchment management, natural-flow maintenance, andexclusion of non-native species. These strategies are based on the three primary threats to freshwaters: land-use disturbances, altered hydrologies, and introduction of non-natives.

A review of stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizingrestoration in Pacific northwest watersheds. Roni, P., et al. 2002. North American Journalof Fisheries Management 22: 1-20 – A hierarchical strategy is presented for maximizingrestoration success – the strategy includes three elements: (1) principles of watershed processes,(2) protecting existing high-quality habitats, and (3) current knowledge of the effectiveness ofspecific techniques. Restoration techniques used in the Pacific Northwest are reviewed, and theauthors conclude that existing research and monitoring is inadequate for all techniques reviewed,and additional, comprehensive physical and biological evaluations of most watershed restorationmethods are needed.

Riparian vegetation response to altered disturbance and stress regimes. Shafroth, P.B.,et al. 2002. Ecological Applications 12(1): 107-123 – Paper discusses study of the Bill WilliamsRiver (BWR) in western Arizona to understand dam-induced changes in channel width and in theareal extent, structure, species composition, and dynamics of woody riparian vegetation.Comparisons were made to the unregulated Santa Maria River (SMR) a tributary of the BWR.Aerial photographs showed that channels along the BWR narrowed, with most narrowingoccurring after dam closure. The pattern of channel width change along the unregulated SMRwas different, with less narrowing, in fact, some widening. Woody vegetation along the BWRwas denser than that along the SMR. Patches dominated by exotic plants were marginally more


B-23

abundant along the BWR, whereas the abundance of patches dominated by native plants wassimilar across rivers.

Design and performance of a channel reconstruction project in a coastal California gravel-bed stream. Kondolf, G.M., et al. 2001. Environmental Management 28(6): 761-776 – Washout of a recently reconstructed reach required re-examination of stream restoration principles.Their examination casts doubt on several assumptions common in many stream restorationprojects: that channel stability is always an appropriate goal; that channel forms are determinedby flows with return periods of about 1.5 years; that a channel classification system is an easyappropriate basis for channel design; and that a new channel form can be imposed withoutaddressing the processes that determine channel form.

The concept of habitat diversity between and within ecosystems applied to river side-armrestoration. Amoros, C. 2001. Environmental Management 28(6): 805-817 – Author proposedthat since returning an ecosystem to a pristine state may not be realistic in every situation, theconcept of habitat diversity should be followed to help decision makers in defining realisticrestoration objectives. To maintain habitat diversity and enhance the long-term success ofrestoration, process-oriented projects should be preferred to species-oriented ones. The conceptis applied to a Rhone River sector (France) where three terrestrialized side arms will be restored.

Buffer zone versus whole catchment approaches to studying land use impact on river waterquality. L. Sliva and D.D. Williams. 2001. Water Research 35(14): 3462-3472 – Secondarydata bases, GIS, and multivariate analysis tools were used to determine whether there was acorrelation between water quality and landscape characteristics within three southern Ontariowatersheds. Whole catchment and 100-m buffer zone influences on water quality over threeseasons were compared. Forested land use appeared important in mitigating water qualitydegradation. The catchment landscape characteristics appeared to have slightly greater influenceon water quality than the 100-m buffer.

Response of macrobenthic communities to restoration efforts in a New England estuary.R.N. Zajac and R.B. Whitlatch. Estuaries 24(2): 167-183 - Analysis of restoration effortsdesigned to increase tidal flushing by dredging in Alewife Cove, Connecticut, found positiveresults, but there was a lag in the ecological response of the system. Macrobenthic communities,in particular summer abundance patterns of selected species, provided an integrated assessmentof ecological changes in the cove.

Alternative Access Management Strategies for Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: AReference Manual For Their Development and Assessment. M.P. Crosby et al. (Editors).July 2000. U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program - Marine and coastal protected areas(MACPAs) are intended to protect and conserve critical habitats and serve as havens forendangered species. This document is a reference manual on the scientific, social, and economicprocedures and benefits of management of these areas.

Dependence of sustainability on the configuration of marine reserves and larval distance.L.W. Botsford et al. 2001. Ecology Letters 4: 144-150 - Marine reserves hold promise for


B-24

maintaining biodiversity and sustainable fishery management, but studies supporting them havenot addressed a crucial aspect of sustainability: the reduction in viability of populations withplanktonic larvae dispersing along a coastal habitat with noncontiguous marine reserves.Authors discuss the theoretical requisite size of reserves based on larval settlement processes.

Patterns and predictions of population recovery in marine reserves. S. Jennings. 2001.Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 10: 209-231 - Marine reserves (no-take zones) are widelyrecommended as conservation and fishery management tools. This paper considers the factorsthat influence species recovery following marine reserve protection, describes patterns ofrecovery in numbers and biomass, and suggests how recovery rates can be predicted. Similar tothe previous paper, the author notes that many reserves are very small in relation to thegeographical range of fish and invertebrate populations.

Detrimental effects of sedimentation on marine benthos: what can be learned from naturalprocesses and rates? Miller, D.C., et al. 2002. Ecological Engineering 19: 211-232 – Field andlaboratory approaches in Delaware Bay were used to address two questions: (1) what rates andfrequencies of sediment movement characterize natural events and (2) what rates and frequenciesare detrimental to representative benthic species and functional groups? Results suggest thatmaterials placement that is analogous to natural events should allow community responses tofollow natural seasonal and successional trends and to exhibit minimal anthropogenic impacts.

Editorial – Use of dredge materials for coastal restoration. Costa-Pierce, B.A., andM.P. Weinstein. 2002. Ecological Engineering 19: 181-186 – Authors discuss and endorse theneed to better understand and overcome past constraints and to accelerate the beneficial uses ofuncontaminated dredged materials in order to dramatically reduce the need for disposal.

Beneficial use of dredged material to enhance the restoration trajectories of formerly dikedlands. Weinstein, M.P., and L.L. Weishar. 2002. Ecological Engineering 19: 187-201 – Theabundance of dredged materials from channel deepening projects that will occur nation-wide, themaintenance dredging of major ports, on-site construction and other projects provide a wealth ofopportunities to combine dredging needs with coastal marsh rehabilitation and restoration.

An assessment of long-term post-restoration water quality trends in a shallow, subtropical,urban hypereutrophic lake. Ruley, J.E., and K.A. Rusch. 2002. Ecological Engineering 19:265-280 – A major restoration effort was undertaken in 1983 that consisted of dredging andrepair of the sewage infrastructure at this shallow urban lake located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.Immediate improvements in water quality were observed following restoration: algal blooms andfish kills were eliminated for nearly a decade. Phosphorous has once again, however, reachedpre-restoration levels, and nitrogen levels have decreased well below those observed during pre-restoration years.

Innovative erosion control involving the beneficial use of dredge material, indigenousvegetation and landscaping along the Lake Erie shoreline. Comoss, E.J., et al. 2002.Ecological Engineering 19: 203-210 – Beneficial use of dredge sediments to control shorelineerosion is discussed.

Enhancement Strategies for Mitigating Potential Operational … · 2016-03-18 · v REPORT SUMMARY...

Documents

Transcript of Enhancement Strategies for Mitigating Potential Operational … · 2016-03-18 · v REPORT SUMMARY...